Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed 

January 28, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-21-00044-CV

IN RE Z.Q., Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

315th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 86707

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 19, 2021, relator Z.Q. filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this

court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the 

petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Leah Shapiro, presiding 

judge of the 315th District Court of Harris County, to rule on relator’s application 

for writ of habeas corpus. 
2

Ordinarily, to be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a relator must show that the 

trial court clearly abused its discretion, and that the relator lacks an adequate remedy 

by appeal. In re Turner, 591 S.W.3d 121, 124 (Tex. 2019) (orig. proceeding). A 

trial court has a ministerial duty to consider and rule on motions properly filed and 

pending before it, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial court to act. In re 

Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App.―San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding). To 

be entitled to mandamus relief for failure to rule on a motion, the record must show 

that the trial court (1) had a legal duty to perform a nondiscretionary act; (2) was 

asked to perform the act; and (3) failed or refused to do so. In re Dimas, 88 S.W.3d 

349, 351 (Tex. App.―San Antonio 2002, orig. proceeding).

As the party seeking mandamus relief, relator has the burden of providing this 

court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. See Walker 

v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Relator has not met 

his burden. To establish that the motion was filed, the relator must provide either a 

file-stamped copy of the motion or other proof that the motion in fact was filed and 

is pending before the trial court. In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71, 74 (Tex. 

App.―Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding); In re Flanigan, 578 S.W.3d 

634, 636 (Tex. App.―Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig. proceeding); In re Henry, 

525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.―Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding).

In his petition, relator states that he sent an application for writ of habeas 

corpus to the trial court via certified mail return receipt requested on November 18, 

2020, with a cover letter addressed to the Harris County District Clerk asking to 

“have his aforementioned documents brought to the attention of the court to be 

considered and ruled upon as soon as the business of the court permits.” Relator 
3

also requested that the clerk stamp the application and the cover letter and return the 

file-stamped copies to him in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. The 

record contains a copy of a green card addressed to the Harris County District Clerk, 

which was signed on November 23, 2020, but it does not identify what was mailed 

to the district clerk. The copies of the application and the cover letter in the record

do not bear a file stamp and relator has not otherwise provide any proof that they 

were filed and are pending in the trial court. Therefore, relator has not demonstrated 

that his application is pending in the trial court. See Gomez, 602 S.W.3d at 74;

Flanigan, 578 S.W.3d 636; Henry, 525 S.W.3d 381, 382.

Even if relator were able to show that his application has been filed and is 

pending in the trial court, he has not shown that his application has been presented 

to the trial court. See Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.―Houston 

[1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (denying mandamus relief in part because relator 

did not take any action to alert trial court that it had not yet considered his motions)

Merely filing a motion with a court clerk does not show that the motion was brought 

to the trial court’s attention for a ruling because the clerk’s knowledge is not imputed 

to the trial court. Hearn, 137 S.W.3d at 685. 

The record includesthree letters dated December 7, 2020, December 21, 2020, 

and January 4, 2021, and addressed to the court coordinator asking that the trial court 

be made aware of the application, an evidentiary hearing be scheduled, and that the 

trial court rule on the application. Relator has not included anything in the record to 

satisfy his burden that his application was in fact presented to the trial court or that 

the court was aware of the application.
4

Relator has not established his entitlement to mandamus relief. Accordingly, 

we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. Relator’s motion to suspend the 

rules is dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Hassan, and Wilson. (Hassan, J., concurring without 

opinion).