In Re: Chase Ryan Eilers v. the State of Texas

DISMISS and Opinion Filed October 30, 2024

In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-24-00824-CV

IN RE CHASE RYAN EILERS, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 255th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-22-18101

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Miskel
Opinion by Justice Nowell
In this original proceeding, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus seeks relief

from the trial court’s March 25, 2024 de novo ruling adopting the associate judge’s

March 5, 2024 report issued in the underlying suit affecting the parent–child

relationship. The trial court’s online docket sheet, publicly available via the Dallas

County District Clerk’s website, shows that the trial court has issued subsequent

temporary orders. See In re Johnson, 599 S.W.3d 311, 311 & n.1 (Tex. App.—Dallas

2020, orig. proceeding) (appellate court may take judicial notice of online docket

sheet when determining jurisdiction). Accordingly, we questioned whether this

original proceeding had been rendered moot. See In re Barnes, No. 05-21-00861-
CV, 2022 WL 456547, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 15, 2022, orig. proceeding)

(mem. op.) (concluding that mandamus petition challenging temporary orders was

moot after the trial court modified possession schedule). We requested either a

motion to dismiss or a letter brief explaining why this original proceeding is not

moot.

Relator filed a letter brief contending that this proceeding is not moot. After

reviewing relator’s letter brief and the record before us, however, we conclude that

this original proceeding is moot. Accordingly, we dismiss relator’s petition for writ

of mandamus.

Additionally, we had previously struck the mandamus petition and record, and

we had granted relator leave to re-file a petition and record that complies with rule

9.9 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Although relator has filed an

amended petition and record, the filings still contain unredacted sensitive data—such

as the minors’ names—in violation of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 9.9. Accordingly, we again strike the petition and record.

/Erin A. Nowell/
240824f.p05 ERIN A. NOWELL
JUSTICE

–2–