In Re: Thomas Fuller Mason v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-23-00138-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE: §

THOMAS FULLER MASON, § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

RELATOR §

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Thomas Fuller Mason filed this original proceeding to challenge Respondent’s denial of
his motion for protection. 1 On July 21, 2023, this Court conditionally granted the petition in part
and directed Respondent to (1) vacate his May 10, 2023, order denying Relator’s motion for
protection and ordering Relator to respond to five categories of documents identified in a
subpoena from Real Parties in Interest Maja Mason Steele and Thomas Theron Mason, and in its
stead, (2) to issue an order imposing limits on categories one, two, three, and five, and
compelling Relator to respond to only categories one, two, three, and five, as limited. By an
order signed on August 10, Respondent complied with this Court’s opinion and order, rendering
this proceeding moot. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus as moot.

Opinion delivered August 31, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

1
Respondent is the Honorable J. Clay Gossett, Judge of the 4th District Court in Rusk County, Texas.
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT

AUGUST 31, 2023

NO. 12-23-00138-CV

THOMAS FULLER MASON,
Relator
V.

HON. JUDGE J. CLAY GOSSETT,
Respondent

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by
Thomas Fuller Mason; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12-23-00138-CV and the
defendant in trial court cause number 2020-160, pending on the docket of the 4th Judicial
District Court of Rusk County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed
herein on May 19, 2023, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of
this Court that the writ should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and
ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby dismissed as
moot.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.

2