In Re: Edwin E. Buckner, Jr. v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-23-00323-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE: §

EDWIN E. BUCKNER, JR., § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

RELATOR §

MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Edwin E. Buckner, Jr., acting pro se, filed this original proceeding to complain of
Respondent Gregg County Clerk Michelle Gilley’s failure to file his answer in a probate case. 1
This Court’s mandamus authority is limited to (1) a judge of a district, statutory county,
statutory probate county, or county court in the court of appeals district; (2) a judge of a district
court who is acting as a magistrate at a court of inquiry under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
Chapter 52 in the court of appeals district; (3) an associate judge of a district or county court
appointed by a judge under Chapter 201, Family Code, in the court of appeals district for the
judge who appointed the associate judge; or (4) a situation in which a writ of mandamus is
necessary to protect the Court’s jurisdiction. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b) (West
2005). The County Clerk is not a judge over which this Court possesses mandamus authority.
In re Emerson, Nos. 12-20-00068-CR & 12-20-00069-CR, 2020 WL 1536510, at *2 (Tex.
App.—Tyler Mar. 31, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §
22.221(a), (b)); see In re Dotson, No. 12-20-00205-CV, 2020 WL 5552626 (Tex. App.—Tyler
Sept. 16, 2020, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (dismissing mandamus proceeding
against district clerk for want of jurisdiction). Nor does the record demonstrate that issuance of a

1
Judith Janet Thomas is the Real Party in Interest.
writ of mandamus against the County Clerk is necessary to protect this Court’s jurisdiction. See
generally In re Vargas, No. 01-12-00351-CV, 2012 WL 1454550, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] Apr. 26, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op) (per curiam) (dismissing mandamus
proceeding against district clerk for want of jurisdiction because addressing complaint that clerk
refused to file petition was not necessary to enforce appellate court jurisdiction). For this reason,
we deny Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. 2

Opinion delivered January 10, 2024.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

2
Additionally, Relator’s petition fails to comply with appellate Rules 52.2, 52.3(a)-(h), and (j)-(k),
and 52.7. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2 (designation of parties); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3 (form and contents of petition);
TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7 (record). The Clerk of this Court notified Relator of the defects and gave a deadline by which
to correct them. Appellant did not correct the defects.

2
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT

JANUARY 10, 2024

NO. 12-23-00323-CV

EDWIN E. BUCKNER, JR.,
Relator
V.

MICHELLE GILLEY,
Respondent

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by
Edwin E. Buckner, Jr.; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12-23-00323-CV, arising out
of trial court cause number 2023-0097-E, pending on the docket of the County Court at Law No
2 of Gregg County, Texas. Said petition for writ of mandamus having been filed herein on
December 20, 2023, and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this
Court that the writ should not issue, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED
that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby denied.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.