In Re Amelia V. Kelly Appeal from 122nd District Court of Galveston County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied, Motion for Temporary Relief Denied as Moot, and Memorandum Opinion filed November 26, 2014. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-14-00944-CV IN RE AMELIA V. KELLY, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 122nd District Court Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 11CV0325 MEMORANDUM OPINION On November 25, 2014, relator Amelia V. Kelly 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 John Ellisor, presiding judge of the 122nd District Court of Galveston County, to vacate three orders pertaining to a motion by the real party in interest to enforce the final judgment in the underlying litigation by foreclosure of relator’s real property. Along with her petition, relator also filed in this court a motion for temporary relief, asking this court to stay enforcement of one of the challenged orders in which the trial court ordered foreclosure of the subject property and a corresponding Sheriff’s sale of the property. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. Just in October of this year, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court with respect to the same orders that are challenged in the present case. We denied relator’s previous petition. See In re Kelly, No. 14-14-00789-CV, 2014 WL 5492809, *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 30, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., per curiam). Relator now returns with a new petition for writ of mandamus, but presents the same issues and arguments that were contained in the earlier petition. Relator has not identified any compelling reason for us to reconsider our prior decision, nor are we aware of any such reason. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We further deny as moot relator’s motion for temporary relief. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Donovan. 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.