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

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.