1 By memorandum opinion date d October 13, 2006, this Court denied relator’s petition for writ of mandamus against the Honorable Abe Lope z in causenumber 07-06- 0370-CV, by

which Relator soug ht the same reli ef he seeks herein.

NO. 07-06-0462-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL C DECEMBER 21 , 2006

______________________________ IN RE MIC HAEL E. GEIGER , RELATOR

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ.
MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Relator, Michael E. Geiger, proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Honorable Abe L opez, Judg e o f the 1 08th Distri ct Court of Potter County to h old a hearing on motions pending in his civil action and is sue judgment in t he case. We deny the relief soug ht. 1
On March 28, 2005, Relator filed a civil suit again st Donna Salana, W ayne J. Nance, and the Texas D epartment of Crimi nal Justice. According to an exhibit i ncluded with the petition for writ of manda mus, the DistrictClerk of Potter County noti fied Relator2

thathissui t w as fi led among the r ecor ds of t he 108th Distri ct Court of Potter County. I n his petition for writof mandamu s, Relator alleges that all defendants ref used to answer his suit. He also ass erts he filed a “Motion for Notice and Def ault Judgment” i n January 200 6. Howeve r, no copy of

the motion is inc luded in the ex hibits accompany ing the peti tion. A copy of a “Motion for Judgment on the Pl eading,” w hich Relator alleges he filed on April 17, 2006, is included . It is not, however , certified nor sworn, which is a mandatory r equirement of Rule 52.3 (j )(1)(A)

of the Texas Rul es of Appe llate Pro cedure. Also included as an exhibit to the petition is correspondence from the Potter County Distric t Clerk dated May 19, 2005, responding to Relator’ s inquir y for a case history and providi ng the mailin g address of this C ourt. Relying on nu mero us au thor itie s, Rel ator cont end s the trial cour t has vi olated hi s constitutional rights i n refusing to p erform the ministe rial duty of hearin g his motions and issuing default judgment. He maintains mandamus relief is appropriate because he has no available relief by appeal.
“Mandamus issues only to correct a clear abus e of dis cre tion or t he v iol atio n of a duty imposed by l aw when there is no oth er adequateremedy by law.” Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W .2d 833 , 839 (T ex. 1992 ) (orig. proceeding) , quoting Johnson v. Fourth Cour t of Appeals , 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 ( Tex. 1985) (o rig. pro ceeding). To show entit lement to mandamus relief, Rela tor must satisfy three elements: first , a legal duty to perform a nondiscretionaryact; sec on d, a demand for performance; and third, r efusal of that demand.3

Stoner v. Massey

, 586 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex. 1979). When a motion is properl y pending before a trial co urt, the act of con sidering and ruling on the motion isa ministeri al act. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Marshall , 829 S.W .2d 157, 158 (Tex. 1992 ). (orig. proceeding). However, the trial court has a reasonable time within which to perf orm t hat m inist eria l dut y. SafetyKleen Corp. v. Garcia , 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex.App.–San Antonio 1 997) (ori g. proceeding). Whether a reasonabl e period of time has lapsed i s dependent on the circumstances

of each case. Barnes

v. State , 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1992) (orig. proceeding).
Addi tion ally, the party seeking r elief has the burde n to provi de a sufficient record to establish entitlement to mandamus relief. Walker

, 827 S.W .2d at 837. See also In re Bates , 65 S.W.3d 133, 13 5 (Tex.Ap p.–Am arillo 20 01) (orig. proceeding). The record must show the motion was presented to thetrial cour t and that it r

efused to act. In re Vill

arreal , 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 n.2 (Tex.A pp.–Amarillo 20 03) (orig . proceeding ) (filing something w ith the Distric

t Clerk does

not demonstrate tha ta motion has been brought to the trial court’s attention).
The scant recor

d before us does not d emonstrate that Relator presented his motions to the trial court and tha t it refused to act. W e conclude he has not satisf ied his burden to provi de a sufficient record demonstrating that a properl y filed motion has awaited disposition for an unreasonablelength of time nor thatthe trial courthas refused to perf orm a ministerial act. Additi onally, Relator did not substantiall y comply with the requirements4

of Rule 52.3 of the Texas Rules of Appel late Procedur e. See Mansfield St

ate Bank v. Cohn , 573 S.W.2d 181, 184-85 (Tex. 1978) ( noting that litigants who repr

esent themselves must comply w ith the applicable pr ocedural rules or they would be given an unfair advantage over litigants represented by counsel). Consequently , Relator’s petition for w rit of mandamus is denied.

Patrick A. Pirtle Justice