In Re Anurithi Chikkerur v. the State of Texas - Mandamus Denied
Summary
The Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin), denied a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Anurithi Chikkerur, a pro se declared vexatious litigant. The relator sought relief from the Local Administrative Judge's denial of permission to file a motion for enforcement by contempt. The court denied the petition because the relator failed to provide a sufficient record from which to evaluate the merits of the claims.
What changed
The Texas Court of Appeals denied Anurithi Chikkerur's petition for writ of mandamus (Docket No. 03-26-00128-CV). The relator, proceeding pro se and designated as a vexatious litigant under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §§ 11.102-11.103, sought permission from the Local Administrative Judge to file a Motion for Enforcement by Contempt and Request for Clarification. After the judge denied permission, the relator filed this mandamus action challenging that denial. The court found that the relator failed to meet her burden under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a) to provide a sufficient record containing sworn copies of every document material to her claim.
Compliance officers should note that vexatious litigants seeking mandamus relief must comply with strict procedural requirements, including providing a complete and sufficient record. Failure to supply such documentation is grounds for denial regardless of the underlying merits. Pro se litigants subject to prefiling orders face significant procedural obstacles when seeking judicial relief and must carefully document all underlying proceedings to support extraordinary relief requests.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 31, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
In Re Anurithi Chikkerur v. the State of Texas
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 03-26-00128-CV
- Nature of Suit: Mandamus
Disposition: Motion or Writ Denied
Disposition
Motion or Writ Denied
Lead Opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-26-00128-CV
In re Anurithi Chikkerur
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, who is acting pro se and a declared vexatious litigant, has filed a petition
for writ of mandamus seeking relief from the Local Administrative Judge’s denial of her request
for permission to file “Motion for Enforcement by Contempt and Request for Clarification if
Necessary.” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 11.102 (requiring permission from local
administrative judge to file new litigation and allowing mandamus relief when local
administration judge denies request), .103 (prohibiting clerk of court from filing “litigation,
original proceeding, appeal, or other claim presented, pro se, by a vexatious litigant subject to a
prefiling order under Section 11.101 unless the litigant obtains an order from the appropriate
local administrative judge described by Section 11.102(a) permitting the filing”).
It is Relator’s burden to request and properly establish entitlement to
extraordinary relief, including by providing this Court with a sufficient record from which to
evaluate his claims. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); In re Smith,
No. 03-14-00478-CV, 2014 WL 4079922, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 13, 2014, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying mandamus relief when relator failed to provide sufficient
record); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a) (requiring relator to file record containing sworn
copies “of every document that is material to [his] claim for relief and that was filed in any
underlying proceeding”).
Here, Relator has not provided us with a sufficient record from which we may
evaluate the merits of her petition. On this record, we conclude that Relator has failed to show
entitlement to relief. Accordingly, her petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R.
App. P. 52.8(a).
Chari L. Kelly, Justice
Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Ellis
Filed: March 31, 2026
2
Named provisions
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Courts & Legal alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Texas Court of Appeals publishes new changes.