in Re Chris Hughes, 13-17-00600-CV

Chris Hughes, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the Hidalgo County District Clerk to release funds allegedly owed in underlying cause T-0380-14-C (Monte Alto ISD et al. v. Doyle et al.).
Hughes did not provide a record or appendix supporting his mandamus petition.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy requiring proof of a clear abuse of discretion and lack of adequate appellate remedy; the relator bears that burden.
Texas appellate rules require a mandamus relator to include facts supported by competent evidence in an appendix or record and to provide a concise legal argument with citations.
The Texas Court of Appeals may issue mandamus against judges in its district but lacks general jurisdiction to issue mandamus against a district clerk except to enforce the court's own jurisdiction.
The Court examined the petition and determined it did not implicate the court's jurisdiction and dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction; a motion for leave to file was dismissed as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether this Court has authority to grant mandamus relief compelling a district clerk to release funds	Hughes sought an order directing the district clerk to release funds in the underlying case	Implicit: the Court noted jurisdictional limits on issuing mandamus against a district clerk	Court lacks jurisdiction to issue mandamus against the district clerk in this matter and dismissed the petition
Whether Hughes complied with mandamus procedural requirements (record/appendix and competent evidence)	Hughes filed pro se petition but did not supply a record or appendix	Court relied on Texas Rules requiring an appendix/record and citations to competent evidence	Relator failed to provide required record/appendix; petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (and procedural deficiencies noted)

In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300 (orig. proceeding) (mandamus burden and standards)
In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276 (orig. proceeding) (mandamus availability to correct clear abuse of discretion)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (orig. proceeding) (relator's burden in mandamus proceedings)
In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708 (orig. proceeding) (definition of abuse of discretion)
In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524 (orig. proceeding) (balancing adequacy of appellate remedy for mandamus)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (orig. proceeding) (considerations for mandamus vs. appeal)
Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992) (orig. proceeding) (pro se relator must show entitlement to mandamus)
In re Simmonds, 271 S.W.3d 874 (orig. proceeding) (court lacks jurisdiction to issue mandamus against district clerk absent enforcement of the court's jurisdiction)
In re Smith, 263 S.W.3d 93 (orig. proceeding) (same)
In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691 (orig. proceeding) (same)