In re Christopher Jones--Appeal from 12th District Court of Madison County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-08-00265-CV

In re Christopher Jones

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM Opinion

Christopher Jones has filed an application with this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus against the Honorable Joyce Batson, District Clerk of Madison County, and against the Chief Justice of the 12th Judicial District Court of Madison County. We presume the latter reference is to the Honorable William L. McAdams, Judge of the 12th District Court of Madison County. The essence of Jones s complaint is that Batson has refused to file, process, or service the legal papers Jones has tendered for filing. This Court has recently dismissed a petition making similar allegations which Jones filed solely against Batson because this Court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk except to protect its jurisdiction. In re Jones, No. 10-08-00242-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 5753, at *1 (Tex. App. Waco July 30, 2008, orig. proceeding).[1]

The primary distinctions between the mandamus petition we dismissed and the petition Jones has filed in this proceeding are: (1) Jones named Judge McAdams as an additional respondent; and (2) Jones includes general allegations that Respondents are blocking Relator from accessing the courts and have wholly failed to ensure Relator is afforded his right to access the court. However, there is nothing in Jones s petition and supporting documentation to indicate that he has taken the steps necessary to obtain mandamus relief when a trial court clerk has refused to file pleadings. See In re Bernard, 993 S.W.2d 453, 454-55 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding) (O Connor, J., concurring).

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed August 13, 2008

Do not publish

[OT06]

[1] As with the prior mandamus proceeding, Jones has failed to provide proof of service indicating that he served copies of the petition and accompanying pleadings on the other parties to this proceeding. See Tex. R. App. P. 9.5. We apply Rule 2 and suspend the service requirement to expedite a decision in this matter. Id. 2.