Opinion
No. 14-10-01139-CV
Memorandum Opinion filed December 2, 2010.
Original Proceeding Writ of Mandamus, 234th District Court, Trial Court Cause No. 2005-06163.
Panel consists of Chief Justice HEDGES and Justices YATES and BROWN.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On November 22, 2010, relator Edward R. Newsome filed paperwork that we construe as a petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. Gov't Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. Relator refers to a final judgment in a civil suit that was appealed to this court. See Newsome v. St. Luke's Hosp., 2007 WL 1558759, No. 14-06-01149-CV (Tex. App.-Houston [14th] May 31, 2007, no pet.). Relator appears to be seeking to further litigate this suit.
Mandamus relief is available if the trial court abuses its discretion, either in resolving factual issues or in determining legal principles, when there is no other adequate remedy by law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992). A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law, or if it clearly fails to analyze or apply the law correctly. In re Cerberus Capital Mgmt., L.P., 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 2005). The relator has the burden to present a petition and record showing that he is entitled to mandamus relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3, 52.7; In re Houstonian Campus, L.L.C., 312 S.W.3d 178, 187 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th] 2010, orig. proceeding).
Relator has not established that he is entitled to relief. Accordingly, we deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus.