Case Information
*1 CHARLES N. DRAPER,
Appellant, Pro Se § CAUSE NO. 03-14-00265-CV
§
V. § IN THE THIRD COURT
OF APPEALS GREG GUERNSEY, at Austin, Texas
IN HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF § PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT §
WATERSHED PROTECTION §
REVIEW DEPARTMENT, §
AND CITY OF AUSTIN §
§
Appellee. §
IN RE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
ftECgA/r? APR 2 9 2015 ^&f* WEALS Statement of the Case Mi
In Re Appellant, Charles N. Draper brings forth a request for a in the above mentioned cause of action, against Appellees. Appellees failed to properly follow State statues: Texas LGC§43.002- Continuation of LandUse, and Texas LGC§245.00- Project, Torts §876, Tex. CRPC Rule §101.0215(29)- Municipal Liability, Planning and Zoning by denying Appellant's valid Travis County Flood Hazard Permit, thereby, adversely condemning Appellant's 'vested-rights' without adequate compensation. The Relator has justiciable interest in the underling controversy. Terrazas v. Ramirez, 829 S.W. 2d 712,723 (Tex. 1991) Appellees' actions are the proximate cause of damages, therefore, relator seeks relief, compliance, and economic damages for $10 million in from Appellees; through a Writof Mandamus.
Judgment and Memorandum of Opinion The respondent, Honorable Justice Pemberton, presiding judge of the Third Court of Appeals, Travis County, Texas issued the following Judgment, February 25th, 2015:
"Having reviewed the record and parties' arguments, the Court holds that, there was a reversible error in the district court's order. Therefore, we affirm in part, and we also reverse in part as they apply to this case."
Relator filed a petition for a in the Third Court of Appeals on April 29th, 2015. The panel to consider the petition consist of Justices Puryear, Justice Pemberton, and Justice Bourland.
Further stated in Memorandum Opinion issued February 25th, 2015: The court of appeals reversed the district court's dismissal because; "The district court granted the motion and dismissed 'all claims and causes of action filed against [Guernsey] in this lawsuit'... [and because], it awards relief beyond that properly authorized under subsection (a) or (e) of Section 101.106 of the Civil Practices and Remedies Code..."
Gov't Code §24.011(3) Supervisory Writ- Section 8, Article 5 of the Constitution, and legislation thereon, do not confer upon district court a supervisory control over justice courts, as was given by the constitution of 1845 and 1869. Seele v. State (Civ. App 1892) 1 Tex. Civ. App. 495, 20 S.W. 946
Gov't Code §24.011(5) Mandamus is a legal remedy, but it is governed to some extent by equitable principles. Industrial Foundation of South v. Texas Indus. Ace. Bd. (Sup 1976) 540 S.W. 2d 688.
PRAYER In Re Appellant, Draper request the Court enforce LGC §245, §43 and CPRC §15.011. "Draper also seeks monetary damages - a total exceeding $10 million, in fact." The Court does not directly address the $10 million damages in the Judgment; yet, Draper argued compliance under LGC §245.006 "enforcement through mandamus or declaratory or injunctive relief in Appellant's Original Brief. Draper requests relief, under LGC §245 and §43, CPRC §15.011 recovery of interest real property, remove encumbrances from title to real property, grant 'vested -rights', and recovery of damages to real property, order the Appellees to pay $10 million damages, and other relief in the Writ of Mandamus.
Respectfully submitted, *3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 29, 2015, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Appellant's Petition for Writ Mandamus, was sent by certified mail, return receipt request to Sandra Kim, Austin Law ,nd Department, City Hall, 301 West 2na Street. P.O. Box1546, Austin, Texas 78767-1546
Sandra Kim, Assistant City Attorney
Law Department, City of Austin ,nd ,
City Hall, 301 West 2no Street
P.O. Box 1546
Austin, Texas 78767-1546
(512) 974-2925
<3r~«...*^-
Charles N. Draper In Re Appellant, Pro Se 6300 Highway 290 West Austin, Texas 78735 Phone: 512.699.2199 Email: cd@teiasland.com