In Re Jordan Alyousef v. the State of Texas

DENIED and Opinion Filed July 10, 2024

S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-24-00799-CV

IN RE JORDAN ALYOUSEF, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 2
Grayson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2019-376P

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Miskel
Opinion by Justice Miskel
Before the Court is relator’s July 3, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus

challenging (1) the trial court’s purported order approving a claim from the

administrator and (2) the trial court’s purported failure to remove the administrator.

Upon review, relator’s petition does not meet the requirements of the Texas Rules

of Appellate Procedure for consideration of mandamus relief. See In re Backusy,

No. 05-23-00674-CV, 2023 WL 4540278, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 14, 2023,

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1, 52.3(g), 52.3(j)–(k), 52.7(a). For

example, relator failed to file with the petition an appendix or record containing

documents showing the matter complained of and any other documents material to
his claim for relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1); In re Skinner, No.

05-23-00930-CV, 2023 WL 6618295, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 11, 2023, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.) (explaining that it is relator’s burden to provide the Court

with a sufficient record to show entitlement to mandamus relief). Additionally,

relator omitted the rule 52.3(j) certification required for consideration of mandamus

relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j); In re Stewart, No. 05-19-01338-CV, 2020 WL

401764, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 24, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)

(explaining that our precedent requires “exceptionally strict compliance” with rule

52.3(j)).

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

/Emily Miskel/
EMILY MISKEL
240799F.P05 JUSTICE

–2–