in Re Barry Dwayne Minnfee

NUMBER 13-11-00569-CV COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE BARRY DWAYNE MINNFEE

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1 Relator, Barry Dwayne Minnfee, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus on September 6, 2011.2 The petition for writ of mandamus appears to challenge the Matagorda County District Clerk’s failure to file two of Minnfee’s lawsuit petitions due to his status as a vexatious litigant. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. 11.101 (West 2002). Minnfee argues that the failure to file his petitions violates his First Amendment rights under the United States Constitution. See U.S. CONST. amend. I.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must establish both that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). If relator fails to meet both of these requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. See id. It is relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (―Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.‖).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210. The Matagorda County District Clerk was correct in not filing Minnfee’s petitions as there is nothing in the record indicating that he sought permission from the local administrative judge to file his lawsuits. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.102–.103 (West July 28, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op. per curiam); In re Minnfee, No. 13-09-00268-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 5030, at **1–2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi May 18, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op. per curiam); In re Minnifee, No. 13-09-108-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 4933 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Apr. 2, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op. per curiam); In re Minnfee, No. 13-09-00108-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 1559, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Feb. 27, 2009, orig. proceeding) (mem. op. per curiam); In re Minnfee, No. 13-08-00561-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 7946 , at **1–2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Oct. 15, 2008, orig. proceeding) (mem. op. per curiam).

2002). Further, Minnfee failed to adequately brief how the failure to file these lawsuits violated his constitutional rights. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(h) (providing that an appellant's brief "must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the record."). Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM Delivered and filed the 5th day of October, 2011.