In Re Nathaniel Jones III Appeal from 172nd District Court of Jefferson County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-15-00055-CV _________________ IN RE NATHANIEL JONES III ________________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Nathaniel Jones III complains that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to rule on Jones’s motions in a civil suit on file before the 172nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas. Jones filed an original petition asserting claims against two prison employees in their individual capacities. Jones has not shown that he requested that citation issue, provided an address for service on either defendant, filed a declaration of inability to pay costs with his petition, or filed a motion to compel issuance of citation. See Johnson v. McAdams, 781 S.W.2d 451, 452 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, orig. proceeding) (denying mandamus 1 relief when the petition failed to show the trial court breached a duty to compel the clerk to issue citation). Relator’s unsupported claim that he mailed the trial court a copy of a request for issuance of citation that Jones directed to the clerk does not establish that Jones requested a ruling by the trial court. Jones filed a written request for a final order, but it appears that Jones filed it with the clerk without asking that the request be presented to the trial court and without submitting a proposed final order for the judge’s signature. To establish abuse of discretion by failing to rule on a motion, the relator must show that he asked the trial court to rule. See In re Querishi, No. 14-13-00300-CV, 2013 WL 1845770, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 30, 2013, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on March 18, 2015 Opinion Delivered March 19, 2015 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ. 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.
