Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Justin Tolar petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling the judge of the 1A District Court of Newton County, Texas, to notify the executive director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice that records maintained by the department were inaccurate.
Tolar asserted that he had never been arrested, charged, or even present in Newton County, but that his criminal-history record contained a notation indicating that he had been arrested and charged there with sexual assault and that the charge was dismissed. An administrative response to his grievance suggested that the Newton County District Attorney would most likely need to have the records corrected.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Court of Appeals denied Tolar’s petition. It explained that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or violation of a legal duty when no adequate legal remedy exists.
The mandamus record showed that Tolar was not, and had never been, a party to litigation in the 1A District Court. He therefore failed to establish that the district judge had a ministerial duty to notify the Texas Department of Criminal Justice that its records were inaccurate.
Key Takeaways
- A mandamus petitioner must establish a clear abuse of discretion or violation of a legally imposed duty and the absence of an adequate legal remedy.
- Tolar did not show that the Newton County district judge had a ministerial duty to seek correction of the disputed criminal-history notation.
- The court denied relief without determining whether the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s record was factually inaccurate.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that an allegation of inaccurate government records does not, by itself, establish entitlement to mandamus relief against a particular judge. The petitioner must identify a clear, legally required, nondiscretionary act that the judge has failed to perform.
Because Tolar had never been a party to litigation in the district court, the appellate court found no basis for compelling that court’s judge to intervene in the correction of records maintained by another government entity.