In re Bradley Jared Barton Appeal from 309th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued September 17, 2020 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-20-00613-CV ——————————— IN RE BRADLEY JARED BARTON, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Bradley Jared Barton, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this Court “to issue a mandamus directing Respondent, the T.D.C.J.-I.D. Ferguson Unit mailroom, to process/send Relator’s legal mail to the Court without inspection or interference.”1 We dismiss the petition. 1 The underlying case is Office of the Attorney General v. Bradley Jared Barton, cause number 2018-84841, pending in the 309th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Linda Dunson presiding. This Court “may issue all writs of mandamus, agreeable to the principles of law regulating those writs, against a judge of a district or county court in our district,” or as necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. In re Fontenette, No. 01-0301194-CR, 2003 WL 22999530, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 23, 2003, orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication) (citing TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221). We lack jurisdiction over the Ferguson Unit’s mailroom. See In re Douglas, No. 14-09-00388-CV, 2009 WL 1150088, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 30, 2009, orig. proceeding) (dismissing mandamus petition asking court to order mailroom of Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s C.T. Terrell Unit to “make copies of the legal mail log book”); In re Mullins, No. 09-04-056CV, 2004 WL 256555, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Feb. 12, 2004, orig. proceeding) (dismissing mandamus petition that sought to compel mailroom supervisor of Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Gib Lewis Unit to issue paper and pens for relator to use in appeal). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Lloyd, and Landau. 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.