From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Williamson

Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, Waco
Dec 20, 2006
No. 10-06-00397-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 20, 2006)

Opinion

No. 10-06-00397-CV

Opinion delivered and filed December 20, 2006.

Before CHIEF JUSTICE GRAY, JUSTICE VANCE, and JUSTICE REYNA.


Original Proceeding MEMORANDUM OPINION

Letha Williamson, the wife of a prisoner, requests this Court to mandamus the Limestone County Sheriff to furnish copies of arrest or offense reports to her which were apparently forwarded to the Court of Criminal Appeals. Williamson also filed a motion for leave to file her petition for writ of mandamus and a motion to proceed "in forma pauperis."

The motion to proceed "in forma pauperis" was actually styled "James L. Williamson, Relator v. Dennis Wilson, Sheriff Limestone County, Texas, Respondent" and was signed by James L. Williamson. Letha Williamson signed the motion as a "third party."

We question whether Williamson has standing to pursue this mandamus. See Child World v. Solito, 780 S.W.2d 954, 955 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1989, orig. proceeding) (One maintaining a mandamus proceeding must show he has a justiciable interest in the subject matter of the litigation.). Nevertheless, because the Limestone County Sheriff is not a judge of a district or county court in this court of appeals district, and because the issuance of the writ Williamson seeks is not necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of this Court in a case properly before it, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief Williamson requests. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b) (Vernon 2004); Silva v. Klevenhagen, 833 S.W.2d 746, 747 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding).

Absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing fees at the time a document is presented for filing. TEX. R. APP. P. 12.1(b); Appendix to TEX. R. APP. P., Order Regarding Fees (July 21, 1998). See also TEX. R. APP. P. 5; 10TH TEX. APP. (WACO) LOC. R. 5; TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 51.207(b) (Vernon 2005). Under these circumstances, we suspend the rule and order the Clerk to write off all unpaid filing fees in this case. TEX. R. APP. P. 2.

The petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Williamson's motion for leave to file her petition is dismissed as moot. Likewise, the motion to proceed without the advance payment of cost is dismissed as moot. Pet. dismissed

Motions dismissed


Summaries of

In re Williamson

Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, Waco
Dec 20, 2006
No. 10-06-00397-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 20, 2006)
Case details for

In re Williamson

Case Details

Full title:In re Letha Williamson

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Tenth District, Waco

Date published: Dec 20, 2006

Citations

No. 10-06-00397-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 20, 2006)

Citing Cases

Williamson, 10-07-00032-CV

For the reasons expressed in our prior opinion, the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of…