In Re Michael W. Bohannan Appeal from 435th District Court of Montgomery County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-19-00369-CV __________________ IN RE MICHAEL W. BOHANNAN __________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 08-07-06907-CV __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator Michael W. Bohannan filed this original mandamus proceeding, in which he complains that the trial judge refused to rule on his properly filed pro se motion to strike the trial court’s abatement order, 1 the trial court violated the Open Courts provision of the Texas Constitution by abating the case, and the trial court 1 The mandamus record reflects that the trial court abated Bohannan’s civil commitment as a sexually violent predator until Bohannan is eligible for release from the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 841.150(a). 1 violated his rights to due process by abating the case without notice to him. Bohannan did not provide a copy of his pro se motion to strike the trial court’s abatement order. Mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or violation of a duty imposed by law when that abuse cannot be remedied by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992). After reviewing the mandamus record and petition, we conclude that Bohannan has not demonstrated an abuse of discretion by the trial court for which there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on November 13, 2019 Opinion Delivered November 14, 2019 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.