In Re: Ruben Solis Anderson--Appeal from of County (majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana ______________________________ No. 06-11-00256-CR ______________________________ IN RE: RUBEN SOLIS ANDERSON Original Mandamus Proceeding Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter MEMORANDUM OPINION Ruben Solis Anderson filed a petition for writ of mandamus listing the Texas Department of Corrections as the respondent. In the substance of the petition, Anderson claims that he filed a writ of habeas corpus on October 18, 2011, with the clerk of the Bowie County District Court seeking transfer to a safe prison because [a]ttempts on his life have been done. He complains that [t]he bowie county district court, clerk [sic] office too have been non-responsive, and asks this Court to issue a writ of mandamus to Bowie County Court to address life endangerment issues. This Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district. TEX. GOV T CODE ANN. ยง 22.221(b) (West 2004). Because we do not have jurisdiction against a district clerk or the Texas Department of Corrections unless necessary to enforce our jurisdiction, and Anderson has not demonstrated that mandamus relief is necessary for this purpose, we have no jurisdiction over these parties to the extent Anderson seeks relief against them. This leaves the request that writ issue against the Bowie County District Court. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that issues only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or violation of a duty imposed by law when no other adequate remedy by law is available. State v. Walker, 679 S.W.2d 484, 485 (Tex. 1984) (orig. proceeding). Due to the nature of this remedy, it is Anderson s burden to properly request and show entitlement to the mandamus relief. See 2 generally Johnson v. Fourth District Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) ( Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks. ). Anderson had the obligation to provide us with evidence in support of his claim that he is entitled to mandamus relief. No portion of any clerk s record or reporter s record has been filed with this Court. The absence of a mandamus record prevents us from evaluating the circumstances of this case and, consequently, the merits of Anderson s complaints. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7; Barnes, 832 S.W.2d at 426. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. Jack Carter Justice Date Submitted: Date Decided: December 13, 2011 December 14, 2011 Do Not Publish 3
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.
