Case Information
*1 Dismissed and Opinion Filed October 22, 2021
In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00667-CV IN RE: YANIKA DANIELS, Relator Original Proceeding from the 303rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-21-08690 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Goldstein
Opinion by Justice Osborne
Yanika Daniels (Realtor) filed a pro se petition [1] seeking a writ of mandamus ordering the judge of the 303rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas to vacate the June 23, 2021 “temporary orders” in the underlying suit affecting the parent-child relationship or, in the alternative, to issue a “writ of habeas corpus” compelling the return of her child. Relator also filed her second motion for emergency relief on October 11, 2021.
*2 Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.9 prohibits the filing of documents containing sensitive data, including the name of any person who was a minor when the underlying suit was filed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 9.9. A document containing sensitive information may not be filed with the court unless the sensitive information is redacted or it is required by a statute, court rule, or administrative regulation. See id. 9.9(b). Both Relator’s appendix, which is attached to her mandamus petition, and her October 11, 2021 motion for emergency relief include documents showing prohibited sensitive data. [2]
Accordingly, we strike both Relator’s October 11, 2021 motion for emergency relief and Relator’s August 5, 2021 petition for writ of mandamus. See id. 9.9. Also, we direct the Clerk of the Court to remove those documents from this Court’s website. See id. 9.9(e).
This original proceeding is dismissed without prejudice. /Leslie Osborne/ 210667f.p05 LESLIE OSBORNE
JUSTICE
[1] We note the rules apply equally to all parties, whether a party is represented by counsel or not. In re Vasquez , No. 05-15-00592-CV, 2015 WL 2375504, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 18, 2015, orig. proceeding). If a pro se litigant is not required to comply with the applicable rules of procedure, she would be given an unfair advantage over a litigant who is represented by counsel. In re McKinney , No. 05-14- 01513-CV, 2014 WL 7399301, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 15, 2014, orig. proceeding).
[2] We note that on October 5, 2021, this Court ordered Relator’s October 4, 2021 motion for emergency relief stricken for failure to comply with Rule 9.9. –2–