In re Emilio De Los Santos Appeal from County Court at Law #4 of Fort Bend County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Petition for Writ of Prohibition Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 22, 2016. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14-16-00749-CV NO. 14-16-00750-CV IN RE EMILIO DE LOS SANTOS, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS WRIT OF PROHIBITION County Court at Law No. 4 Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 15-CPR-028306 MEMORANDUM OPINION On September 21, 2016, relator Emilio De Los Santos filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Sandy Beilstein, presiding judge of the County Court at Law No. 4 of Fort Bend County, to set aside the August 23, 2016 order directing relator to vacate certain property. Relator has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Relator also filed a petition for writ of prohibition, to prohibit Judge Beilstein from holding any hearings in the case until this court has decided the petition for writ of mandamus. No appeal related to the underlying action is pending in this court. In the absence of a pending appeal, this court lacks jurisdiction over relator’s petition for writ of prohibition. See Bayoud v. N. Cent. Inv. Corp., 751 S.W.2d 525, 529 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1988, orig. proceeding) (“A court of appeals does not have jurisdiction, absent a pending appeal, to issue a writ of prohibition requiring that a trial court refrain from performing a future act.”). Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, and dismiss his petition for writ of prohibition for lack of jurisdiction. We further deny relator’s emergency motion for temporary relief. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Christopher. 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.