Ex parte T.M.F.
T.F. In re: Ex parte T.M.F. In re: Ex parte I.W.
(Jefferson District Court, DR-18-500939; Court of Civil
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CIVIL
petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari to review the
March 5, 2019, order of the Court of Civil Appeals denying
his petition for a writ of mandamus, Ex parte T.M.F.
(No. 2180428, March 5, 2019), ___ So.3d ___ (Ala. Civ. App.
2019) (table); T.M.F. sought a writ of mandamus directing the
Jefferson District Court to vacate its order denying his
motion for a change of venue in an underlying case involving
a petition for protection from abuse from Jefferson County to
Mobile County and to enter an order transferring the case to
Mobile County. We dismiss the petition for a writ of
21(e), Ala. R. App. P., sets forth the procedures for seeking
review of decisions of the Courts of Appeals granting or, as
in this case, denying a petition for a writ of mandamus. Rule
21(e) states, in relevant part:
"(1) A decision of a court of appeals on an original
petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition or other
extraordinary writ (i.e., a decision on a petition filed in
the court of appeals) may be reviewed de novo in the supreme
court, and an application for rehearing in the court of
appeals is not a prerequisite for such review. If an
original petition for extraordinary relief has been denied by
the court of appeals, review may be had by filing a
similar petition in the supreme court (and, in such a
case, in the supreme court the petition shall seek a writ
directed to the trial judge). ...
"(3) Without regard to whether the court of appeals has
issued an opinion, rehearing may be sought in the court of
appeals, but if a rehearing is sought, then review in the
supreme court shall be by petition for writ of
certiorari pursuant to Rule 39[, Ala. R. App. P.]."
than filing a petition for a writ of mandamus in this Court
seeking de novo review of the issue before the Court of Civil
Appeals in denying his petition for a writ of mandamus,
T.M.F. filed a petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to
Rule 39, Ala. R. App. P. However, under Rule 21(e), Rule 39
comes into play only if T.M.F. had first sought a rehearing
in the Court of Civil Appeals. Because T.M.F. did not file an
application for rehearing in the Court of Civil Appeals, his
only avenue for seeking review in this Court would be filing
a petition for a writ of mandamus. Rule 21(e); see also
generally State v. Lewis, 907 So.2d 1020 (Ala.
2005). Accordingly, the petition for a writ of certiorari is
Shaw, Mendheim, and Stewart, JJ., concur.
Parker, C.J., and Wise, Bryan, and Mitchell, JJ., concur in
PARKER, Chief Justice (concurring in the result).
that T.M.F.'s petition should be dismissed. However, I
disagree with the conclusion of the main opinion that
mandamus is the exclusive avenue for seeking review
of the Court of Civil Appeals' decision on a mandamus
petition where the losing party has not filed an application
for rehearing. This exclusive view lacks a clear basis ...