In re Charles W. Bishop II--Appeal from 150th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-05-00629-CV

IN RE Charles W. Bishop II

Original Mandamus Proceeding //

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 5, 2005

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

Charles W. Bishop II seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to vacate its order dismissing Bishop s case for want of prosecution. According to Bishop, the trial court had no jurisdiction to render the challenged order because the same claims were filed under a separate cause number, assigned to a different court, and dismissed. Bishop supports his request with two handwritten documents, which purport to be copies of the notice of dismissal in the underlying case and the order granting a summary judgment against Bishop and dismissing his claims in Cause Number 2003-CI-05998, filed in the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas.

As the party seeking mandamus relief, Bishop must provide this court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j)(1)(A); 52.7(a)(1). As a general rule, this requires a record that establishes an abuse of discretion for which the appellate remedy is inadequate. Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 839-40. Neither of these requirements is met by Bishop s mandamus record. Simply put, a trial court may dismiss a cause of action for want of prosecution under either Rule 165a or its inherent authority. See Alexander v. Lynda s Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845, 850 (Tex. 2004); Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a. The trial court s dismissal authority is not affected by the fact that a final judgment may have been rendered by another court in another cause number on the same claims. Moreover, Bishop s appellate remedy to appeal the dismissal order is plainly adequate.

Because Bishop has failed to establish either an abuse of discretion or the inadequacy of his legal remedy, we deny his petition for a writ of mandamus. Since Bishop is indigent, no costs shall be assessed against him.

PER CURIAM