In re Gavin Wilbur West Appeal from 328th District Court of Fort Bend County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion issued February 27, 2025 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00117-CV ——————————— IN RE GAVIN WILBUR WEST, Relator Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Gavin Wilbur West, acting pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, complaining that the trial court has abused its discretion in refusing to rule on his motion to dismiss real party in interest’s application for a family-violence protective order.1 Relator also seeks sanctions. 1 The underlying case is Amy Michelle Paul v. Gavin Wilbur West, cause number 25DCV-324874, pending in the 328th District Court of Fort Bend County, Texas, the Honorable Monica Rawlins presiding. Although relator has not included the required identity of parties, see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a), his petition indicates that his complaints concern the lack of action by the Honorable Felishia Young, Associate Judge of the 328th District Court. Although relator mentions the Honorable Monica Rawlins, the Presiding Judge of the 328th District Court,2 he presents no argument seeking relief concerning any actions by Judge Rawlins. The appellate court lacks mandamus jurisdiction over an associate judge. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221(b). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8. Because this Court lacks jurisdiction, we need not reach any other issues raised in the petition. Any pending motions are likewise dismissed as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Johnson, and Dokupil. 2 Relator states: “Judge Rowlings [sic] handling of the De Novo, has been equally inappropriate, but was likely caused by Judge Young’s failure to record her rulings/decisions, refusal to hear Motions, and refusal to set Hearings, thus creating of a “legal limbo” designed to punish the Respondent.” 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.
