In Re Chanel Melton Appeal from County Court at Law No 2 of Galveston County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 20, 2014. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-14-00883-CV IN RE CHANEL MELTON, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS County Court at Law No. 2 Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 13-FD-0582 MEMORANDUM OPINION On November 4, 2014, relator Chanel Melton filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Stephen Baker, associate family judge of the County Court at Law Number 2 of Galveston County, to vacate a purported order finding relator in contempt. This court does not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against an associate judge. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(a), (b); see also In re D.G., No. 1414-00420-CV, 2014 WL 2767623, *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 17, 2014, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (mem. op., per curiam); In re Nomura, No. 14-13-00744-CV, 2013 WL 4774087, *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Sept. 5, 2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., per curiam); In re J.W.B., No. 14-12-00410CV, 2012 WL 1695208, *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] May 15, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., per curiam). And relator has not provided this court any documentation demonstrating that the referring court has approved of the purported contempt judgment. See Tex. Fam. Code §§ 201.007(a)(13), 201.013(b). In fact, relator has not provided this court any documentation whatsoever in support of her mandamus petition, contrary to the applicable rules. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). Accordingly, because relator has not demonstrated that this court has jurisdiction to grant the requested relief, we dismiss relator’s petition for want of jurisdiction. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Boyce, McCally, and Brown. 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.
