Summary
The Texas Court of Appeals for the Third District dismissed Tony Ramirez’s pro se petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction. The court held that it lacked mandamus jurisdiction over the Hays County District Attorney and that Ramirez had not shown that issuance of the writ was necessary to enforce the court’s appellate jurisdiction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Texas Court of Appeals has mandamus jurisdiction over a district attorney in these circumstances.
- Whether the relator demonstrated that issuance of a writ against the district attorney was necessary to enforce the court's appellate jurisdiction.
Holdings
- The Texas Court of Appeals does not have mandamus jurisdiction over a district attorney unless issuing the writ is necessary to enforce the court's appellate jurisdiction.
Key quotations
“This Court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over a district attorney.”
“Thus, the District Attorney of Hays County is not a party against whom we may issue a writ of mandamus unless necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.”
“We therefore have no jurisdiction to grant relator the relief he seeks.”
Factual background
Tony Ramirez, an inmate with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, filed a pro se mandamus petition asserting that criminal charges were putatively pending against him. He sought an order directing the respondent to dismiss those charges. The court treated the Hays County District Attorney as the intended respondent.
Procedural history
Tony Ramirez, an inmate proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, naming the State of Texas as respondent. The court treated the petition as directed against the Hays County District Attorney and dismissed it for want of jurisdiction.