In Re Brandy Gayle Self v. the State of Texas
Docket 03-26-00387-CV
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Other
- Disposition
- Denied
- Docket
- 03-26-00387-CV
Original mandamus proceeding in the Court of Appeals challenging unspecified actions, with portions dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and emergency relief dismissed as moot.
Summary
The Texas Third Court of Appeals denied in part a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Brandy Gayle Self, dismissed an emergency relief request as moot, and dismissed other portions of the petition for lack of jurisdiction. The court also struck the mandamus record because it contained unredacted sensitive information. The opinion explains the court cannot grant relief against parties not properly before it and cites precedent and statute for jurisdictional limits and for protecting sensitive data in filings.
Issues Decided
- Whether the court should issue a writ of mandamus for the relief requested by the relator.
- Whether the court has jurisdiction to issue mandamus relief against parties not before the court, including the Comal County Tax Assessor-Collector and certain mortgage holders.
- Whether the mandamus record must be struck for containing unredacted sensitive data.
Court's Reasoning
The court denied the requested mandamus relief for matters properly before it and dismissed requests against parties not before the court because a court cannot adjudicate rights of persons who are not properly before it, relying on statutory jurisdictional limits. The emergency request was dismissed as moot because it no longer required immediate court action. The record was struck because it contained unredacted sensitive information and precedent supports removing such material from the record.
Authorities Cited
- Texas Government Code § 22.221(b)
- Gregory v. Stetson133 U.S. 579 (1890)
- In re PopovNo. 05-24-00493-CV, No. 05-24-00494-CV, 2024 WL 2150028 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 14, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
- In re BaronNo. 04-21-00263-CV, 2021 WL 3057487 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 21, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
Parties
- Petitioner
- Brandy Gayle Self
- Judge
- Maggie Ellis
- Judge
- Triana
- Judge
- Kelly
- Respondent
- Comal County Tax Assessor-Collector
- Respondent
- Certain mortgage holder(s)
Key Dates
- Filed
- 2026-04-30
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consult counsel about alternatives
Discuss with an attorney whether other remedies or different proceedings can address the underlying grievance, given the court's jurisdictional limits.
- 2
Consider filing a motion for rehearing
If there are grounds to challenge the denial or dismissal, prepare and file a timely motion for rehearing consistent with appellate rules.
- 3
Resubmit record redacting sensitive information
If parts of the record are necessary for review, prepare a replacement record that redacts sensitive data before filing to avoid further strikes or sanctions.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court denied part of the mandamus petition, dismissed emergency relief as moot, dismissed portions of the petition against certain parties for lack of jurisdiction, and struck the record because it contained unredacted sensitive data.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The petitioner, Brandy Gayle Self, is affected because her request for mandamus relief was denied in part; the Comal County Tax Assessor-Collector and mortgage holders were not subjected to relief because the court said it lacked jurisdiction to act against them.
- What happens to the struck record?
- The court removed the mandamus record from the case file because it contained unredacted sensitive information, consistent with prior opinions protecting such data.
- Can this be appealed or reconsidered?
- Mandamus proceedings are discretionary and limited; the petitioner may seek other relief in a different forum or file a motion for rehearing, but the opinion notes jurisdictional limits that could bar relief against parties not before the court.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-26-00387-CV
In re Brandy Gayle Self
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied in part, and relator’s request for
emergency relief is dismissed as moot. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). To the extent that relator
seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus for matters not currently before us or against the Comal
County Tax Assessor-Collector and certain “mortgage holder[s],” we dismiss the petition for
want of jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221(b); Gregory v. Stetson, 133 U.S. 579, 586
(1890) (“It is an elementary principle that a court cannot adjudicate directly upon a person’s right
without having him either actually or constructively before it. This principle is fundamental.”).
Additionally, we strike relator’s mandamus record, as it contains unredacted sensitive data. See
In re Popov, No. 05-24-00493-CV, No. 05-24-00494-CV, 2024 WL 2150028, at *1 (Tex.
App.—Dallas May 14, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Baron, No. 04-21-00263-CV,
2021 WL 3057487, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 21, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
(per curiam).
__________________________________________
Maggie Ellis, Justice
Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Ellis
Filed: April 30, 2026
2