## NUMBER 13 - 22 - 00365 - C V COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI
– EDINBURG

IN R E CHRISTOPHER WAYNE HOLT

On Petition for Writ o f Mandamus
. 

## MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina 1
Relator Christopher Wayne Holt filed a pr o se petition for writ of mandamus in the above
- referenced cause through which he a sserts in four issues , with multiple sub
- issues , that : (1) the trial court abused its discretion by failing and refusing to rule on relator’s motions; (2) relator cannot obtain relief without a hearing; (3) t he facts and circumstances

1 See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.8(d) ( “ When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so . When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case

. ” ); id. R. 47.1 ( “ The court of appeals must hand down a written opinion that is as brief as practicable but that addresses every issue raised and necessary to final disposition of the appeal. ” ); id. R. 47.4 ( explaining the differences between opinions and memorandum opinions).2

of the case demonstrate the elapsed period to be unreasonable; and (4) the trial court’s refusal to timely consider and rule on relator’s motions “forces an impossible condition ” upon relator. Relator has also filed a motion for emergency temporary relief requesting the same relief that he has requested in his petition for writ of mandamus

. Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem. Co. , 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza , 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial court abused its discretion, and (2) t he relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re USAA Gen. Indem. Co. , 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am ., 148 S.W.3d at 135

– 36; Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 839

– 40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “ The relator bears the burden of proving these two requirements. ” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co. , 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); see Walker , 827 S.W.2d at 840 ; see also Barnes v. State , 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1s t Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). In addition to other requirements, the relator must include a statement of facts and a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record. See generally T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3 (governing the form and contents for a petition). Further, the relator must file an appendix and reco rd sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); id. R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record).3

To obtain mandamus relief for the trial court ’ s refusal to rule on a motion, a relator must establish: (1) the motion was properly filed and has been pending for a reasonable time; (2) the relator requested a ruling on the motion; and (3) the trial court refused to rule. In re Greater McAllen Star Pro ps., Inc. , 444 S.W.3d 743, 748 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi

– Edinburg 2014, orig. proceeding); In re Craig , 426 S.W.3d 106, 106

– 07 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Chavez , 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2001, o rig. proceeding). Stated otherwise, a relator must establish that the trial court : (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed or refused to rule on the motion within a reasonable time. In re Pete , 589 S. W.3d 320, 321 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2019, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The relator must show that the trial court received, was aware of, and was asked to rule on the motion. In re Blakeney , 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding); In re Villarreal , 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding). In this regard, merely filing a document with the district clerk neither imputes the clerk ’ s knowledge of the filing to the trial court nor equates to a request that the trial court rule on the motion. In re Pete , 589 S.W.3d at 322; In re Craig , 426 S.W.3d at 107. Whether a reasonable time for the trial court to act has lapsed is dependent upon the circumstances of each case. See In re Blakeney , 254 S.W.3d at 66 2; In re Chavez , 62 S.W.3d at 228. The test for determining what time period is reasonable is not subject to exact formulation, and no “ bright line ” separates a reasonable time period from an unreasonable one. See In re Mesa Petroleum Partners, LP , 538 S.W .3d 153, 157 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2017, orig. proceeding); In re Greater McAllen Star Props., Inc. , 4444

S.W.3d at 748; In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d at 661; In re Chavez , 62 S.W.3d at 228. We examine a “ myriad ” of criteria, including the trial court ’ s actual kn owledge of the motion, its overt refusal to act, the state of the court ’ s docket, and the existence of other judicial and administrative matters which must be addressed first. See In re Greater McAllen Star Props., Inc. , 444 S.W.3d at 748

– 49; In re Blakene y , 254 S.W.3d at 661; In re Chavez , 62 S.W.3d at 228

– 29. The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus , the record provided, and the applicable law , is of the opinion that relator ha s not met h is burden to obtain relief

. First, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus fails to meet the foregoing requirements insofar as it does not state concisely and without argument the facts pertinent t o the issues or points presented, see T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52 .3(g); each statement o f fact in the petition is not supported by citation to competent evidence included in the appendix or record , see id. ; and the petition does not contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record , see id. R. 52.3 (h)

. 2 Second, relator has not established that the trial court has abused its discretion. See , e.g. , In re UpCurve Energy Partners, LLC , 632 S.W.3d 254, 257

– 58 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2021, orig. proceeding) ( “ W e . . . recognize that courts have inherent authority to manage their dockets. ” ); In re Marriage of Harrison , 557 S.W.3d 99, 137 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. denied) ( “ The judge, not the litigant, controls the trial court docket. ” ); In re State ex re l. Skurka , 512 S.W.3d 444,

2 We further note that appellant ’ s appendix is not properly tabbed or indexed and fail s to contain fully functional bookmarks. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52 .3 (k) (regarding the appendix to an original proceeding) ; id. R. 9.4(h) (governing the form for an appendix and a record in an original proceeding)

. And, instead of filing a mandamus record under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7, relator filed a clerk ’ s r ecord as prepared by the district court. See id. R. 52 .7 (delineating the requirements for the mandamus record) ; id

. R. 34.5 (governing the clerk ’ s record on appeal).5

452 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi

– Edinburg 2016, orig. proceeding) ( “ T he control of the business of the court is vested in the sound discretion of the trial judge. ” )

. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and the mot ion for emergency temporary relief. O ur ruling regarding this petition for writ of man damus i s without prejudice as to any further original proceedings that might be presented on this topic in the future

.

JAIME TIJERINA Justice Deliver ed and filed on the 10th day of August , 202 2

.