Opinion
NO. 03-18-00146-CV
03-09-2018
In re Wesley Perkins
ORGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator Wesley Perkins has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking relief from the trial court's order granting a motion to dismiss pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a that was filed by two of three defendants in the underlying case. See Tex. Gov't Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. To be entitled to mandamus relief, Perkins must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that he lacks an adequate appellate remedy. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-40 (Tex. 2004) (citing Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex.1992)). In this case, Perkins has not shown that he does not have an adequate appellate remedy from the trial court's dismissal of his claims against the two defendants pursuant to Rule 91a. See id. at 136-38. Accordingly, having reviewed the petition and the record provided, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
Perkins also sought to have this Court issue orders directing the defendants to take certain actions, as well as a declaration related to the merits of the underlying suit. This Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against these public officials or to render declaratory judgments. See Tex. Gov't Code § 22.221 (establishing writ power of courts of appeals); see also City of Ingleside v. Johnson, 537 S.W.2d 145, 149 (Tex. Civ. App.—Corpus Christi 1976, no writ) (holding courts of appeals have no jurisdiction to render declaratory judgment in original proceeding) (citing Lydick v. Chairman of Dallas Cty. Republican Exec. Comm., 456 S.W.2d 740, 741 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1970, no writ); Donald v. Carr, 407 S.W.2d 288, 291 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1966, no writ)).
/s/_________
Jeff L. Rose, Chief Justice Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field Filed: March 9, 2018