In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-13-00117-CV

IN RE: ROBERT TROY MCCLURE

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert Troy McClure, an inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus asking this Court to order the Honorable Bobby Lockhart, presiding judge of the 

102nd Judicial District Court of Bowie County, Texas, to rule on several motions pending in his 

court. McClure sued a number of prison officials alleging excessive force was used by prison 

guards. McClure alleges that since the lawsuit was reinstated almost a year ago by order of this 

Court,1 the trial court has refused to rule on his motions and is attempting to have him certified 

as a vexatious litigant. McClure does not complain about the alleged attempt to have McClure 

certified as a vexatious litigant but only complains about the trial court’s refusal to rule on his 

motions.2 McClure requested an order from the trial court permitting him to (1) file subpoenas, 

(2) add parties, (3) have the sheriff serve citations, (4) be free from restraints at his vexatious 

litigant hearing, and (5) have the sheriff serve subpoenas to fact witnesses. 

Mandamus issues only when the mandamus record establishes (1) a clear abuse of 

discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate 

remedy at law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); see 

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). A trial 

court clearly abuses its discretion when it reaches a decision “so arbitrary and unreasonable it 

amounts to a clear and prejudicial error of law or it clearly fails to correctly analyze or apply the 

 1

McClure v. State, No. 06-12-00075-CV, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 10554 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Dec. 20, 2012, no 

pet.) (mem op.) (trial court erred in dismissing because McClure’s claims have arguable basis in law).

2

A trial court generally has a ministerial duty to rule on all pending motions within a reasonable time. In re 

Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 662 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding). 
3

law.” In re Olshan Found. Repair Co., 328 S.W.3d 883, 888 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding). To 

determine whether a party has an adequate remedy by appeal, we apply a balancing test. See 

Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 136; In re AIU Ins. Co., 148 S.W.3d 109, 115 (Tex. 2004) (orig. 

proceeding). Under this test, a remedy available on direct appeal is adequate when the 

detriments of mandamus review outweigh the benefits. Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 136.

McClure has failed to provide this Court with a sufficient record. It is the relator’s 

burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief. 

Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 187 S.W.3d 197, 198–99 (Tex. App.—

Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. While McClure attached a letter 

requesting a ruling on the above motions, McClure failed to attach certified or sworn copies of 

the motions themselves. While the petition does contain an appendix, the appendix does not 

include “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing 

the matter complained of.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). We cannot grant mandamus relief 

without certified or sworn copies of the motions complained of.

For the reasons stated, we deny McClure’s petition.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: November 18, 2013

Date Decided: November 19, 2013