In Re Justin W Fuller v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed September 19, 2024

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-24-00238-CR
__________

IN RE JUSTIN W. FULLER

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Justin W. Fuller, filed this original proceeding pro se seeking relief
against the Erath County District Clerk1 (Respondent). According to Relator’s
petition for writ of mandamus, his constitutional rights have been violated. Relator
requests that this court order the district clerk to “perform a legal duty,” specifically,
to “[f]ile any and all motion[s] mailed to” the district clerk’s office, and asserts that
the district clerk’s office “cannot [r]ecommend whether to file a certain pleading.”

1
Relator seeks relief against the “Clerk of Court.” Although Erath County has separately elected
district and county clerks, Relator served the district clerk with his petition, and attached a document in
support of his petition from the district clerk’s office.
To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must establish that: (1) the act
sought to be compelled is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial
decision; and (2) there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged harm. In
re Meza, 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (orig. proceeding).
This court’s authority to exercise original jurisdiction is limited. See TEX.
CONST. art. V, §§ 5, 6 (intermediate courts of appeals only have original jurisdiction
as prescribed by law); TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2023) (limited
writ powers granted to courts of appeals). We do not have writ jurisdiction over a
district clerk’s office unless it is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction in another
proceeding. In re Smith, 263 S.W.3d 93, 95 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006,
orig. proceeding); see GOV’T CODE § 22.221.
Relator has not demonstrated that our jurisdiction is implicated here, or that
the Erath County District Clerk’s Office is a party against whom we may issue a writ
under the circumstances. As a result, we have no jurisdiction as an intermediate
appellate court to address this original proceeding. To the extent Relator seeks relief
against the district clerk and the district clerk’s office, we lack jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE

September 19, 2024
Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

2