In Re: Michael L. Bird Appeal from 349th District Court of Houston County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 12-18-00291-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS IN RE: § MICHAEL L. BIRD, § RELATOR § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Michael L. Bird filed this original proceeding to challenge a temporary order in a suit affecting the parent child relationship and the denial of his motion to transfer. 1 On January 16, 2019, this Court conditionally granted Bird’s petition and directed Respondent to vacate her December 15, 2016, order denying Bird’s motion to transfer and issue an order transferring the case to Bell County. By an order signed on January 28, Respondent complied with this Court’s opinion and order, rendering this proceeding moot. Accordingly, we dismiss Bird’s petition for writ of mandamus as moot. Opinion delivered January 31, 2019. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. (PUBLISH) 1 Respondent is the Honorable Pam Fletcher, Judge of the 349th District Court in Houston County, Texas. The Real Party in Interest is Angelique Ledesma. COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS JUDGMENT JANUARY 31, 2019 NO. 12-18-00291-CV MICHAEL L. BIRD, Relator V. HON. PAM FLETCHER, Respondent ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Michael L. Bird, who is the relator in cause number12-18-00291-CV, and the petitioner in trial court cause number 060-050, pending on the docket of the 349th District Court of Houston County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on October 23, 2018, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the writ should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby dismissed as moot. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.

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.