Court of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District, Corpus Christi-Edinburg
Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Perkes
GREGORY T. PERKES JUSTICE 
Juan Manuel Albarado, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for
writ of mandamus in the above cause through which he seeks to
have his claims "filed and adjudicated, and a full and
fair hearing given in due course of law." Relator
asserts that he is a "Balli heir" and is attempting
to have his family's alleged title to Padre Island
"restored." Although the petition for writ of
mandamus is unclear, it appears that relator contends that
the district clerk, the trial court, unknown defendants, and
prison officials are refusing to file and adjudicate
relator's claims to real property. We deny the
petition for writ of mandamus in part, as to relator's
claims against the judge of the trial court, and dismiss the
petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction, in
part, as to all remaining respondents.
Standard of Review
obtain relief by writ of mandamus, a relator must establish
that an underlying order is void or a clear abuse of
discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists.
In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708,
712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins.
Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,
839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). An abuse of discretion
occurs when a trial court's ruling is arbitrary and
unreasonable or is made without regard for guiding legal
principles or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide,
494 S.W.3d at 712; Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363
S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine the adequacy of an
appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review
against the detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 450
S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136. In
deciding whether the benefits of mandamus outweigh the
detriments, we weigh the public and private interests
involved, and we look to the facts in each case to determine
the adequacy of an appeal. In re United Servs. Auto.
Ass'n, 307 S.W.3d 299, 313 (Tex. 2010) (orig.
proceeding); In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc., 275
S.W.3d 458, 469 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); In re
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136-37.
the relator's burden to properly request and show
entitlement to mandamus relief. 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."). In addition to other requirements,
the relator must include a statement of facts supported by
citations to "competent evidence included in the
appendix or record," and must also provide "a clear
and concise argument for the contentions made, with
appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or
record." See generally Tex. R. App. P. 52.3.
The relator must furnish an appendix or record sufficient to
support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R.
52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix);
id. R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for
V, Section 6 of the Texas Constitution delineates the
appellate jurisdiction of the courts of appeals, and states
that the courts of appeals "shall have such other
jurisdiction, original and appellate, as may be prescribed by
law." Tex. Const. art. V, § 6(a); see In re
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 532 S.W.3d 510, 511 (Tex.
App.- Texarkana 2017, orig. proceeding). This Court's
original jurisdiction is governed by section 22.221 of the
Texas Government Code. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann.
§ 22.221; see also In re Cook, 394 S.W.3d 668,
671 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2012, orig. proceeding). In pertinent
part, this section provides that we may issue writs of
mandamus and "all other writs necessary to enforce the
jurisdiction of the court." Id. § 22.221
(a). This section also provides that we may issue writs of
mandamus against: (1) a judge of a district, statutory
county, statutory probate county, or county court in the
court of appeals district; (2) a judge of a district court
who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry under
Chapter 52, Code of Criminal Procedure, in the court of
appeals district; or (3) an associate judge of a district or
county court appointed by a judge under Chapter 201, Family
Code, in the court of appeals district for the judge who
appointed the associate judge. Id. § 22.221
petition for writ of mandamus seeks relief against the trial
court, the district clerk, unknown defendants, and prison
officials. To the extent that relator requests that we issue
a writ of mandamus against the judge of the trial court,
relator has failed to meet his burden to show entitlement to
relief. See In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494
S.W.3d at 712; In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148
S.W.3d at 135-36. Relator has failed to file an appendix or
record in compliance with the appellate rules which supports
his claim for relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for
writ of mandamus against the judge of the trial court. To the
extent that relator seeks relief against the district clerk,
unknown defendants, and prison officials, we do not have
mandamus jurisdiction against these individuals unless
necessary to enforce our jurisdiction, and relator has not
demonstrated that the requested relief is necessary for this
purpose. See generally id. § 22.221; In re
Smith, 263 S.W.3d 93, 95 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.]
2006, orig. proceeding) ("This court does not have
jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district
clerk unless such is necessary to enforce our
jurisdiction."); Martinez v. Thaler, 931 S.W.2d
45, 46 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, writ denied)
("A district court has no constitutional or statutory
jurisdiction to exercise supervisory control over prison
officials."). We dismiss the petition for writ of
mandamus against these individuals for lack of jurisdiction.
Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for
writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion
that relator has neither established his right to mandamus
relief against the trial court nor established this
Court's mandamus jurisdiction over the remaining
individuals. Accordingly, we deny the petition ...