### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03 - 20 - 00589 - CV
In re Mark Douglas

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator Mark Douglas , an inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this Court to compel the Honorable Brenda Kennedy, presiding judge of the 403rd Judicial District Court of Travis County , to rule on a motion to compel his trial counsel to release his client file

. Douglas asserts that the mot ion had been filed and presented to the district
court on December 5, 2019 and that the matter remained pending as of July 30, 2020

.

To obtain mandamus relief for the trial court ’ s refusal to rule on a motion, a relator must establish : (1) the motion was properly file d 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 Sarkissian , 243 S.W.3d 860, 861 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2008, orig. proceeding) (mem. op. ); In re Hearn , 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding ). A 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. pro ceeding ); In re Villarreal , 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding ).2 It is relator ’ s burden to show that he is entitle d to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.1992) ; In re Davidson , 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding ); see Barnes v. State , 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding ) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary rel ief he seeks.”). Thus , the relato r must provide the reviewing court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief. See Walker , 827 S.W.2d at 837 ; In re Blakeney , 254 S.W.3d at 661 ; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1) (relator m ust file with petition “a certified or s worn copy of every document that is material to the relator ’ s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”)

. Here , Douglas has failed to provide this Court with a cop y of his motion or any documentation demonstrating that the district court received, was aware of, and was asked but refused to rule on the motion

. S ee In re Lucio , No. 03

– 12

– 00056

- CV , 2012 WL 593533, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Austin Feb. 23, 2012, orig. proceeding ) (mem. op.) (denying mand amus relief whe re relator failed to provi de copy of motion, any correspondence to district court requesting ruling on motion, or anything indicating district court refused to rule on motion)

. Additionally, a trial court has no d uty to rule on “ free

- floating ” motions that are unrelate d to any pen ding action before it , and Douglas has failed to show that h is motion was related to a ny pending action before the district
court. See In re Rhodes , No. 14

- 15

- 00195

- CR, 2015 WL 1247267, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 17, 2015, orig. proceeding ) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (denying mandamus relief where trial court ’ s plenary power over relator ’ s criminal case had expi red and , consequently, trial court had no duty to rule on motion seeking to compel rel ator ’ s former attorney to ret urn client file). For these reasons , we cannot conclude that Douglas has shown himself entitled to mandamus relief

.3 We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

__________________________________________ Gisela D. Triana , Justice Before Justi ces Goodwi n, Triana, and Smith Filed: December 23, 2020