Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

Michael Lou Garrett has filed a document with this court, in the form of a letter addressed to the court's clerk. In the letter, he requests that Caroline Woodburn, Potter County District Clerk, be instructed to take certain actions. With the letter, Garrett encloses a copy of correspondence he says he has sent to the district clerk. Reading his letter to this court's clerk liberally, we will construe it as a petition for a writ of mandamus. Tex. R. App. P. 52.

This court has authority to issue writs of mandamus against district and county court judges within our court of appeals district. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(b) (Vernon Supp. 2003). Otherwise, our authority to issue such a writ exists only to the extent necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221(a). Before it can be said that we are acting to enforce our jurisdiction, the dispute made the basis of the petition must somehow implicate a pending appeal. Wolters v. Wright, 623 S.W.2d 301 (Tex. 1981); In re Washington, 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex.App.-Houston [1^st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding); Upjohn Co. v. Marshall, 843 S.W.2d 203, 204 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1992, no writ).

Garrett has an appeal pending in this court. ⁽¹⁾ His current correspondence, though, asks that the district clerk be instructed to file a petition, which he says he sent the clerk in December 2005, and to notify him of the filing date and cause number assigned. The petition will initiate a new lawsuit. Nothing in Garrett's current correspondence indicates that his dispute with the district clerk implicates his pending appeal. We conclude the relief he now seeks is not necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Since he seeks relief against a district clerk and not against a judge, we therefore have no jurisdiction to consider his request.

Accordingly, we dismiss Garrett's petition for want of jurisdiction.

James T. Campbell

Justice

1. ---

(c) submit a letter, so as to be physically received by the Clerk of this Court no later than 5:00 p.m. on December 15, 2006, ⁽²⁾ which letter shall certify that Russell I. Gunter II has conferred with, and sought counseling from, his supervising attorney Brian Murray concerning the terms of this judgment and its underlying circumstances, which letter shall contain the signatures of Russell I. Gunter II and Brian Murray.

It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that a writ of attachment shall issue for the said Russell I. Gunter II without further notice to him in the event he fails to satisfy any one or more of the stated conditions for suspension of his confinement.

Issued this 20^th day of November, 2006.

Per Curiam

1. The "mailbox rule" shall not apply to this deadline. See Tex. R. App. P. 2 (authorizing the court to suspend operation of a rule in a particular case).

2. The "mailbox rule" shall not apply to this deadline. See Tex. R. App. P. 2 (authorizing the court to suspend operation of a rule in a particular case).