in Re R. Wayne Johnson, Relator

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-13-00424-CV IN RE R. WAYNE JOHNSON, RELATOR ORIGINAL PROCEEDING March 31, 2014

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

Relator R. Wayne Johnson is a prison inmate appearing pro se and in forma pauperis. He is also a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order requirement.1 In this original proceeding, he seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent, the Honorable Dan Mike Bird, judge of the 46th District Court of Hardeman County, to disregard a 2001 order of the 156th District Court of Bee County, Texas, which declared relator a vexatious litigant and instituted the prefiling order requirement.2 We will deny relator’s petition.

The writ of mandamus will issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no adequate remedy available by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).

One seeking extraordinary relief, such as mandamus, must generally bring forward all that is necessary to establish the claim for relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7; Dallas Morning News v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 842 S.W.2d 655, 658 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). This includes providing an adequate record to substantiate the allegations contained in the petition for writ of mandamus. Dallas Morning News, 842 S.W.2d at 658; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

In his petition, relator makes reference to a “stay order” issued by Judge Bird. The appendix to relator’s petition, however, does not contain a copy of any order by Judge Bird nor does it contain a document showing Judge Bird committed any abuse of discretion. See TEX R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). In that respect, and otherwise, the record filed with relator’s petition does not contain a certified or sworn copy of every document material to his claim for relief and that was filed in the underlying proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). Absent a sufficient record, mandamus will not issue. Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837.

Further, appellate rule 52.3 specifies the form and contents of a petition for writ of mandamus. In this respect, relator’s petition is wholly insufficient. It does not contain a section identifying the parties, a table of contents, an index of authorities, a statement of the issues presented, a clear and concise argument with relevant legal citations and citations to the appendix or record. See In re Bibbs, 07-11-00393-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 8192 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Oct. 13, 2011, orig. proceeding) (denying petition for mandamus for noncompliance with appellate rule 52.3).

For these reasons, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.3

James T. Campbell

Justice