Summary
The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, denied a pro se relator’s petition for writ of mandamus challenging the denial of permission to file litigation as a declared vexatious litigant. The court held that the relator failed to provide a sufficient record to establish entitlement to extraordinary relief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the relator established entitlement to mandamus relief from the local administrative judge's denial of permission to file proposed litigation.
- Whether the relator provided a sufficient record to permit the court of appeals to evaluate her mandamus claims.
Holdings
- The relator failed to establish entitlement to mandamus relief because she did not provide a sufficient record from which the court could evaluate the merits of her petition.
Key quotations
“It is Relator’s burden to request and properly establish entitlement to extraordinary relief, including by providing this Court with a sufficient record from which to evaluate his claims.” (2)
“Here, Relator has not provided us with a sufficient record from which we may evaluate the merits of her petition.” (2)
Factual background
Anurithi Chikkerur was acting pro se and had been declared a vexatious litigant. She sought permission from the local administrative judge to file a motion for enforcement by contempt and request for clarification. After the request was denied, she filed a petition for writ of mandamus, but did not provide a sufficient record containing the materials necessary to evaluate the merits of her claims.
Procedural history
The relator, a declared vexatious litigant, requested permission from the local administrative judge to file new litigation. After the request was denied, she sought mandamus relief in the Texas Court of Appeals. The court denied the petition because the relator did not provide a sufficient record to evaluate the merits of her claims.