In re Bobby B. Dash Appeal from 152nd District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued August 31, 2018 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-18-00653-CV NO. 01-18-00725-CV ——————————— IN RE BOBBY B. DASH, Relator Original Proceedings on Petitions for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Bobby B. Dash, proceeding pro se, filed two related mandamus petitions, with the first one seeking to compel the respondent district judge to amend his orders denying relator’s motions for summary judgment and motion for protective order on discovery in the underlying trial court proceeding.1 This Court 1 The underlying proceeding is Bobby B. Dash v. Parc Lake Estates Homeowners Association, Inc., and Carl Edward Bovermann, John Mgbere, Tracy Hermann, Cause No. 2017-16096, in the 152nd District Court, Harris County, the Honorable assigned this first petition to appellate cause number 01-18-00653-CV and requested and received a response. Then relator filed a second pro se mandamus petition seeking to compel the respondent district judge to allow an appeal or to grant a final judgment and he also requests an opinion on Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a(e) to determine whether the denial of his summary judgment motions is appealable. This Court assigned this second petition to 01-18-00725-CV, but no response has been requested. We deny both mandamus petitions. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a), (d). PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes and Bland. Robert K. Schaffer presiding. This Court previously dismissed for want of jurisdiction as moot relator’s similar mandamus petition. See In re Bobby B. Dash, No. 01-18-00350-CV, 2018 WL 3580944, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 26, 2018, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (dismissing petition seeking to compel the respondent to rule on relator’s pending motions). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.