Background
James D. McIntosh, II sought supervisory review of a ruling by the 22nd Judicial District Court in Washington Parish. On July 27, 2026, the district court had denied his motion to continue.
McIntosh’s writ application did not include a transcript of that ruling. The First Circuit explained that, although the omission did not violate the Uniform Rules, the missing transcript prevented the court from adequately reviewing the district court’s decision.
The Court’s Holding
The First Circuit denied the writ on the showing made because McIntosh failed to provide the transcript necessary for meaningful review. The court did not decide whether the district court had properly denied the motion to continue.
The court stated that it would not consider supplementation of the existing application or an application for rehearing. It permitted McIntosh to file a new application without obtaining a return date, provided he filed it by 2 p.m. on July 28, 2026, and included the complete original application, the missing transcript, and a copy of the court’s ruling.
Key Takeaways
- A supervisory-writ application must contain enough of the trial-court record to permit meaningful appellate review.
- The court denied relief for an inadequate record rather than reaching the merits of the motion to continue.
- The existing application could not be supplemented or reheard, but the relator could submit a complete new application by the court’s stated deadline.
Why It Matters
The ruling underscores that compliance with filing rules alone may not make a writ application reviewable. Counsel must include transcripts and other materials necessary to evaluate the challenged ruling.
An incomplete record can result in denial without a merits determination, leaving the applicant to refile under any deadline and conditions imposed by the appellate court.