Ex parte T.M.F., [Ms. 1180454, May 3, 2019] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2019). The Court (Sellers, J.; Bolin, Shaw, Mendheim, and Stewart, JJ., concur; Parker, C.J., and Wise, Bryan, and Mitchell, JJ., concur in the result) dismisses a petition for certiorari seeking review of the Court of Civil Appeals’s denial of a petition for a writ of mandamus. The Court noted that:
Rule 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.].”
Ms. *2-3. (Emphasis in original.) The Court held that “[b]ecause 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.” Ms. *3.