                                    NUMBER 13-08-00421-CV

                                    COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
____________________________________________________________


                    IN RE BILLY HOLMES A/K/A BILLY RICHARDS

____________________________________________________________

                 On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
____________________________________________________________

                                MEMORANDUM OPINION

                       Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Vela
                           Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion1

        Relator, Billy Holmes a/k/a Billy Richards, pro se, filed a petition for writ of

mandamus in the above cause on July 2, 2008. Relator requests this Court to issue a writ

of mandamus ordering Anna Marie Silvas, the District Clerk of Bee County, to file and

process his pleadings.

        We conclude this Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief. This



        1
          See T EX . R . A PP . P . 5 2 .8 (d ) (“W hen denying relief, the court m ay hand dow n an opinio n but
is not required to do so.”); T EX . R . A PP . P . 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and m em orandum opinions).
court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over district clerks unless it is shown that

issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. See TEX . GOV'T CODE ANN . §

22.221(a), (b) (Vernon 2004); In re Simpson, 997 S.W.2d 939 (Tex. App.–Waco 1999, orig.

proceeding); In re Strickhausen, 994 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig.

proceeding); In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 692 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1998, orig.

proceeding); see also In re Hayes, No. 13-05-454-CV, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 5706, *2

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2005, orig. proceeding).

       When a district clerk refuses to accept a pleading presented for filing, the party

presenting the document can seek relief by filing an application for writ of mandamus in the

district court, or attempting to file the pleading directly with a district judge, explaining in a

verified motion that the clerk refused to accept the pleading for filing. See In re Bernard,

993 S.W.2d 453, 454-544 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding)

(O’Connor, J., concurring).

       Relator has neither alleged nor shown that issuance of the writ is necessary to

enforce our jurisdiction.     Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is hereby

DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. See TEX . R. APP. P. 52.8(a).



                                                            PER CURIAM


Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed
this the 15th day of July, 2008.




                                                2
