1 ... T h i s pr oce edi n g a r i s es ou t of Cau s e N o. 08- 08- 00135- CV K , s t y l ed Tr ace y W

. M ur phy v. H ugh G r ee n, e t a l. , pe nd i ng i n t he 8 1 st Jud i ci al D i st ri ct C o urt , K arnes C o unt y , T exas, t he H o no rable D o nna S. Ra y es presi d i ng. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION
No
. 04 -0 9- 00 06 4- CV IN RE T r a c e y

W. MURP HY Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Fe bruar y 25, 2009 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED On F e br ua ry 2, 20 09 , r e lato r Trace y

W. Mu rp hy fi le d a pe tit ion fo r wri t of

mand amus , c omp la ini ngof

the tr ia l c ourt ’s fa ilure to ru le on his “ Mo tio n to Compe l Sher if f [o r] Co ns ta

ble to Serve Proc ess and Return A ll Defe ndant’s Citations.” To obta in a writ of manda mus compelling the trial court to c onsider and rule on a motion, a re lator must establish that the trial court: (1) had a le g al duty to perfor m a non-discr etionary

act; (2) was a sked to perf orm the ac t; and (3) failed or refuse d to do so. In re M

olina , 9 4 S .W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—S an Antonio 2003, orig . proce eding ). When a properly filed m otion is pending befor e a trial court, the act of g iving c onsideration to and ruling upon that motion is minist eria l, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial judge to act. See04
- 09
- 00 06 4- CV

- 2- Sa fe ty -K le e n Co rp . v . G ar c ia , 9 4 5 S
. W
. 2 d 2 6 8 , 2 6 9 (T ex . Ap p . — S an A n t o n i o 1 9 9 7 , o ri g. proce eding ). Howeve r, mandamus will not issue unless the re cord shows that a proper ly filed motion has awaited dispositi on for an unrea sonable amount of time. See id. I t is relator’s bur den to provide this court with a record sufficient to establish his right to re lief. W alker v . Pack

er , 827 S.W. 2d 83 3, 83 7 ( Te x. 19 92 ); T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a ). T h e r ec o rdb ef

o re u s fa i l s t o es t ab l i s hr e l a t o ri s en t i t l edt o th e r el i ef re qu es t ed
. Al th o u gh
re lator a lle g e s h e fi le d h is m oti on on No ve mbe r 19 , 20 08 , re lator ha s no t pr ov ide d th is c ourt wi th a file stamped copy of the motion, a copy of the trial c ourt’s docke t, or any other proof

that he filed the m otion and that it is pending befor e the trial court. In addition, if a motion is properly filed, a trial court has a rea sonable time w ithin which to pe rfor m its minist eria l duty
. See Safe ty-Kleen , 945 S.W .2d at 269. Even if r elator’ s motion was properly filed, the re cord doe s not show that relator’ s motion has awaited disposition for an unr easona ble amount of time. Acc ording ly , beca

use re lator has not met his burden of providing a re cord e stablishing that
a motion wa s proper ly filed and has awa ited dispositi on for an unrea sonable amount of time, he ha s not provided t his court with g rounds t o usurp t he trial court’s inherent authority to control its own docket. See In reMe nd

oz a , 131 S.W .3d 167, 168 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig . proce eding ). Acc ording ly , relator’s petition for wr it of mandamus is denied. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a)
. PER C URI AM