In Re: Sebra Proutt and Rashad White v. the State of Texas

DENIED and Opinion Filed September 25, 2024

In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-24-01063-CV

IN RE SEBRA PROUTT AND RASHAD WHITE, Relators

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1
Rockwall County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1-24-1007

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Breedlove
Opinion by Justice Breedlove
Before the Court is relators’ September 9, 2024 pro se petition for writ of

habeas corpus. Relators ask this Court to compel the trial court to return their

children.

To the extent that the petition is filed pro se by relator Sebra Proutt, we decline

to consider it because she has been appointed an attorney ad litem. See In re Jones,

No. 04-06-00026-CV, 2006 WL 286782, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 8,

2006, orig. proceeding) (explaining that absence of right to hybrid representation

means relator’s pro se petition for writ of mandamus will be treated as presenting

nothing for Court’s consideration).
Relators’ petition also does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure in numerous respects. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.1; TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(a)–

(c), (e)–(k); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a). Thus, relator’s petition does not meet the

requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure for consideration of

mandamus relief. See In re Guillaume, No. 05-24-00765-CV, 2024 WL 3548511, at

*1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 26, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying

mandamus relief based on relator’s failure to comply with several Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure).

Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition.

Additionally, based on our review, relators’ petition for writ of mandamus

contains unredacted sensitive data, including minors’ full names, in violation of

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.9. Accordingly, we

also strike relators’ petition.

241063f.p05 /Maricela Breedlove/
MARICELA BREEDLOVE
JUSTICE

–2–