The opinion
Opinion issued December 5, 2017
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-17-00873-CV
———————————
IN RE ARTIS CHARLES HARRELL, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Artis Charles Harrell, acting pro se, has filed a petition seeking mandamus
relief against the Harris County District Clerk.1 This court’s mandamus jurisdiction
is governed by Section 22.221 of the Texas Government Code. Section 22.221
1
The underlying case is Artis Charles Harrell d/b/a Artistic Work Hair Salon v.
Branch Brinson, R. Burt Brinson, Bonner Brinson, S.P. Dairy Ashford LLC d/b/a/
Salon Park, and Brinson Management Corporation, cause number 2017-28390 in
the 189th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Bill R. Burke, Jr.,
presiding.
expressly limits the mandamus jurisdiction of the courts of appeals to: (1) writs
against a district court judge or a county court judge in the court of appeals’ district;
and (2) all writs necessary to enforce the court of appeals’ jurisdiction. TEX. GOV’T
CODE § 22.221(a)–(b). In this case, we lack jurisdiction to issue the requested writ
of mandamus because the district clerk is not a district court or county court judge,
and Harrell has not shown that the issuance of a writ compelling the requested relief
is necessary to enforce this court’s appellate jurisdiction. See In re Washington, 7
S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding).
Accordingly, Harrell’s petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Brown, and Lloyd.
2