in Re Johnny Partain
13-16-00516-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 3, 2016Background
- Relator Johnny Partain, proceeding pro se, filed an original mandamus petition challenging actions in Hidalgo County cause no. C-0929-12-F against numerous state and local officials and entities.
- Partain sought: (1) default and summary judgment on liability against the State of Texas in the underlying case, (2) a trial setting to determine costs, (3) recovery of appellate costs from a separate matter, and (4) an "open court."
- The mandamus proceeding was directed to the Hon. Mario Efrain Ramirez Jr., the trial-court respondent.
- The opinion recites mandamus standards: it is extraordinary relief to correct clear abuse of discretion when no adequate appellate remedy exists; the relator bears the burden to prove both elements.
- The petition and the record included numerous prior related appeals and mandamus proceedings involving Partain.
- After considering the petition and governing law, the Court of Appeals denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus should compel default or summary judgment declaring State liability | Partain argued he was entitled to default and summary judgment against the State on liability | Respondent/state implicitly argued mandamus relief was not warranted and no clear abuse of discretion was shown | Denied — relator failed to show entitlement to mandamus relief |
| Whether mandamus should order a trial setting to determine costs | Partain sought a trial setting to assess costs owed to him | Respondent/state/objectors maintained mandamus inappropriate to compel such relief | Denied |
| Whether mandamus should award recovery of costs from a separate appeal | Partain sought recovery of his appellate costs in a different matter | Respondent/objectors argued mandamus is not the proper vehicle | Denied |
| Whether mandamus should provide an "open court" remedy | Partain requested an "open court" | Respondent/objectors did not concede mandamus is appropriate for that relief | Denied |
Key Cases Cited
- In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus is extraordinary relief; relator must show lack of adequate appellate remedy and clear abuse of discretion)
- In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus standards reaffirmed)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (relator bears burden to prove both prerequisites for mandamus)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. 2012) (abuse of discretion defined as arbitrary or unreasonable action)
- In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. 2014) (weighing adequacy of appellate remedy for mandamus relief)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (discussing balancing benefits and detriments of mandamus review)
Per Curiam Delivered and filed September 3, 2016.