In re Anurithi Chikkerur v. 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 vexatious litigant. The court denied relief because the relator failed to provide a sufficient record from which the court could evaluate the merits of her petition, as required under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a). The petition sought permission to file a motion for enforcement by contempt and request for clarification regarding a prior local administrative judge decision.
What changed
The Texas Court of Appeals denied Anurithi Chikkerur's petition for writ of mandamus in docket number 03-26-00129-CV. The relator, who is a declared vexatious litigant proceeding pro se, sought relief from the Local Administrative Judge's denial of her request for permission to file a motion for enforcement by contempt and clarification. Under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Sections 11.102 and 11.103, vexatious litigants must obtain permission from the local administrative judge before filing new litigation. The court denied the petition because Relator failed to provide a sufficient record containing sworn copies of every document material to her claim, as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a) and established in Walker v. Packer.
No compliance actions are required as this is a procedural court ruling. Legal professionals and courts should note that pro se vexatious litigants face heightened procedural burdens and must provide complete certified records to pursue mandamus relief. The burden remains on the relator to establish entitlement to extraordinary relief and to supply all material documents from underlying proceedings. Relators seeking similar relief must ensure they file a complete authenticated record with their petition.
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: 03-26-00129-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. 03-26-00129-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.