                                       In The

                                Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                              _________________
                               NO. 09-15-00305-CV
                              _________________


                          IN RE GERALD B. WILSON

________________________________________________________________________

                              Original Proceeding
              435th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas
                       Trial Cause No. 07-02-02127-CV
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Gerald B. Wilson filed a petition for a writ of mandamus compelling the

District Clerk of Montgomery County, Texas, to forward Wilson’s pro se

application for a writ of habeas corpus to this Court. It appears that Wilson filed

the application in a trial court civil case where he may have counsel of record.

      Other than to protect the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, this Court’s

mandamus jurisdiction does not extend to a district clerk. See Tex. Gov’t Code

Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004). The mandamus petition suggests that this Court has



                                          1
original habeas jurisdiction. See generally id. § 22.221(d).1 Our jurisdiction is

invoked by filing an original petition with the appellate court, not the district court.

See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. Relator has not shown that the District Clerk has a

ministerial duty to forward his application to the Court of Appeals. See id.;

compare with Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07, § 3 (West 2015).

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

      PETITION DENIED.



                                                            PER CURIAM


Submitted on August 26, 2015
Opinion Delivered August 27, 2015

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.




      1
       Relator has not provided this Court with a copy of his application for a writ
of habeas corpus, and we do not decide here whether he might have a cognizable
claim.
                                           2
