Opinion
No. 09-10-00399-CV
Submitted on March 4, 2011.
Opinion Delivered March 10, 2011.
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1, Jefferson County, Texas, Trial Cause No. 116195.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., GAULTNEY and HORTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Roy E. Addicks, Jr., a Texas inmate, sued various employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in small claims court. When Justice of the Peace Ransom Deuce Jones allegedly failed to acknowledge Addicks's lawsuit, Addicks filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus with the County Court at Law No. 1 of Jefferson County, against Judge Jones. The County Court at Law denied Addicks's petition for writ of mandamus. On appeal, Addicks challenges Judge Jones's alleged failure to acknowledge his lawsuit and the County Court at Law's denial of his petition for writ of mandamus.
Although Addicks challenges the actions of the County Court at Law, he named Justice of the Peace Ransom Deuce Jones as the appellee in this case. Judge Jones presides over the Justice of the Peace Court, Precinct 6. Because Addicks has styled his appeal in this manner, we refer to Judge Jones as the appellee.
The Jefferson County Court at Law No. 1 is a statutory county court. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 25.1251(a)(1) (West 2004). "In county courts, constitutional or statutory, there is no general power to issue writs or grant equitable relief." Martin v. Victoria Indep. Sch. Dist., 972 S.W.2d 815, 818 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 1998, pet. denied) (citing A T Consultants, Inc. v. Sharp, 904 S.W.2d 668, 671 (Tex. 1995)). Jurisdiction includes the power to "issue writs of injunction, mandamus, sequestration, attachment, garnishment, certiorari, supersedeas, and all writs necessary for the enforcement of the jurisdiction of the court." Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 25.0004(a) (West 2004); see Tex. Const. art. V, § 16. Thus, section 25.0004(a) "provides two grants of authority to issue writs: (1) the specifically named writs when the petition for the writ pleads an amount in controversy within the county court's limited jurisdiction; and (2) all writs necessary to the enforcement of the county court's jurisdiction, regardless of the amount in controversy." Meridien Hotels, Inc. v. Lho Fin. P'Ship I, L.P., 97 S.W.3d 731, 736 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2003, no pet.); see Repka v. Am. Nat'l Ins. Co., 143 Tex. 542, 186 S.W.2d 977, 980 (1945); see also Martin, 972 S.W.2d at 818; Pounds v. Callahan, 337 S.W.2d 148, 150 (Tex. Civ. App.-Beaumont 1960, no writ).
In this case, the record does not indicate that a writ of mandamus is necessary to enforce the County Court at Law's jurisdiction or that Addicks pleaded an amount in controversy. See Meridien Hotels, Inc., 97 S.W.3d at 736-37; see also Martin, 972 S.W.2d at 819; Pounds, 337 S.W.2d at 150. For these reasons, the County Court at Law lacked jurisdiction over Addicks's petition for writ of mandamus and we lack jurisdiction to consider Addicks's appeal. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.220(a) (West Supp. 2010); see also Martin, 972 S.W.2d at 819. We dismiss Addicks's appeal for want of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.