Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-26-00386-CV __________________ IN RE WILLIAM DALE CARTER __________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding 258th District Court of San Jacinto County, Texas Trial Cause No. D-10-498-25 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator William Dale Carter filed a petition for a writ of mandamus. He seeks to compel the trial court “to vacate the District Court’s adverse ruling on ‘delinquent taxes,’ orders, and actions taken by the San Jacinto District Court against [Carter].” He identifies the District Clerk of San Jacinto County as the Respondent to his mandamus petition and he complains that the District Clerk failed to comply with Rule 306a(3) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure in that the District Clerk did not provide a copy of the final judgment signed on July 23, 2026, in what Carter describes as a delinquent tax suit. Carter complains the notice does not give the 1 judge’s name, nor does it state the reason for the judgment or provide any details about the judgment or state what property he owes taxes on. He claims the District Clerk sent the notice of judgment to Heavy Haul Escort Service, a defunct business Carter operated under an assumed name before his current imprisonment. Carter did not file the required appendix and record with his mandamus petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52. 3(l), 52.7(a). Carter is an inmate and alleges that the prison unit where he is housed does not provide photocopy services. Because there is no appendix and record, we are unable to determine how or when the District Clerk sent the purported document, who the District Clerk sent it to, or what information the document did or did not provide. Carter does not say when he acquired actual knowledge that the alleged judgment had been signed. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a(4). “When the final judgment or other appealable order is signed, the clerk of the court must immediately send the judgment or order to the parties as provided in Rule 21(f)(10).” Id. 306a(3). Rule 21(f)(10) requires the clerk to send documents to the parties electronically through an electronic filing system approved by the Supreme Court. See id. 21(f)(10). But the clerk need not send documents electronically when an unrepresented party has not provided an e-mail address. Id. 21(f)(10)(B)(ii). If the email address of the party to be served is not on file with the electronic filing manager, the document may be served on that party “in person, by mail, by 2 commercial delivery service, by fax, by email, or by such other manner as the court in its discretion may direct.” Id. 21a(a)(2). The clerk’s failure to comply with Rule 306a(3) does not affect the periods for challenging the judgment, except as provided in Rule 306a(4). Id. 306a(3). To establish the application of Rule 306a(4), the adversely affected party must “prove in the trial court, on sworn motion and notice, the date on which the party or his attorney first either received a notice of the judgment or acquired actual knowledge of the signing and that this date was more than twenty days after the judgment was signed.” Id. 306a(5). Rule 306a provides a procedure through which a party may receive additional time to file a motion for new trial or perfect an appeal by running the applicable period from the date the party acquired actual knowledge that a judgment had been signed. See id. 306a(4)-(5). Carter’s request for relief asks this Court to compel the trial court to vacate the judgment. Carter has not shown that he is entitled to the relief sought in his mandamus petition. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. PETITION DENIED. PER CURIAM Submitted on October 7, 2026 Opinion Delivered October 8, 2026 Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ. 3