## NO. 12

- 21

- 00133

- CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:
CARLOS DEMOND WILLIAMS , RELATOR § § § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Carlos Demon d Williams, acting pro se, filed this original pro ceeding to request a writ ordering Respondent to make a final disposition in trial court cause number DCCV21

- 2333

- 3, In the Matter of the M a rriage of Carlos Demond Williams an d LaQu inta Willia ms. 1 R elator filed an original petition for divorce on M arch 9, 2021. On or about June 30, Relator mailed completed interrogatories , a motion for default judgment , and a final dec ree of divorce, along with a letter request ing that the matter be placed on the docket

. H e ma intains that the divorce is uncontested , but Respondent has not made a final disposition. A writ of mandamus will issue only when the relato r h as no adequate re med y by appeal and the trial court commi tted a clear abuse of disc r etion. In re Ce rberus Capital Mgmt ., L.P. , 164 S.W.3d 379, 382 (Tex. 20 05) (orig. proceeding). A trial court cannot be found to have abused its discretion until the complai nant establishes t hat the court ( 1) had a legal duty to perform a non

- discretionary act, ( 2) was asked to perform the act, and ( 3) failed or refused to do

so. In re Chavez , 62 S. W.3d 225, 228 (Te x . App.

–Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding)

. It is incumbent upon the relator to establish that the motion has been called to the trial co urt ’ s attention. See id

. A trial court cannot be expected to consider a request for a ruling that has n ot

1 Relator names t he Honorable Pam Fletcher, Judge of the 349th District Court in Houston County, Te xas as the Respondent

. However, the f ile marked copy of his petition for divorce reflec ts that it is filed in the 3 rd District Court of Anderson County, Texa s, over which th e Honorable Mark Calhoon presides. Accordingly , Judge Calhoon is the proper Respo ndent. LaQu i n ta Williams is the Real P arty in Interest.been called to its attention. See id

. ; In re Boyd , No. 07

- 19

- 00279

- CV, 2019 WL 3756915, at *2 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo Aug. 8, 2019, orig. proceeding) ( mem. op.) (p er curiam)

. Relator ’ s mere statement that his motion and other documents were filed is insufficient to

rea sonably infer that Re s po ndent had notice of the pending divorce proceedi ng and of the need to act on it. See I n re Blakeney , 254 S.W

. 3d 659 , 662 ( Tex

. App

. — T exark ana 2008 , o rig

. proceeding ) (trial c ourt not required to consider motion not called to its attention; even showing motion was filed with clerk does not p rove motion was bro ught t o trial court ’ s attention or was presented to trial court with request for ru ling); see also Chavez , 62 S.W.3d at 228 (clerk ’ s knowledge not imputed to t rial court). And t he record does not demonstrate t hat the letter Relator purportedly sent w as ever a ctually recei ved by Respondent

. See In re Taylor , No. 06

- 16

- 00016

- CV, 2016 WL 1435386, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana Apr. 12 , 2016, orig.
proce eding) (relator ’ s letters to court were not file

- ma rked or accompan ied by other evidence showin g their receipt, and did not s how “the trial court received, was aware of, and was asked to rule on his pleadings[ ]”). Nor does Relator ’ s p etition contain evi dence, such as a docket sheet, demonstrating that Respondent has not ruled on his petition or mot ions

. See In re Creag , No. 12

- 17

- 00191

- CV, 2017 WL 2665987, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Tyler June 21, 2017, orig. pr oceeding) (mem. op .); see also In re Vasquez , No. 05

- 15

- 00592

- C V, 2015 WL 2375504 ( Tex. App.

— Dallas May 1 8, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying petition that failed to include a docket sheet or other form or proof that trial court h ad not ruled on motion). This is all particularly true given tha t Relator has apparently been operating under the belie f that a judge other than the actual Respondent is handling his divorce proceeding. Accordingly, under these circumst an ces, Relator has n ot established his e ntitlement to mandamus relief. See Boyd , 2019 WL 3756915, at *2 ( R elator failed to establish that petition for divorce and motion for trial setting w ere brought to trial court ’ s attention )

. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. Opinion delivered S eptember 15 , 2021. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley , J.

## COURT O F APPEALS
TW ELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 15 , 2021
NO. 12

- 21

- 00133

- CV

CARLOS DEMOND WILLIAMS , Rel ator V.
HON. MARK CALHOON , Respondent

O RIGINAL P ROCEEDING
ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Carlos Demond Williams ; who is the relator in appellate cause number 12

- 21

- 00133

- CV and the petitioner in trial court c ause numbe r DCCV21

- 2333

- 3 , pending on the docket of the 3 rd Judicial District Court of Houston County , Texas. Said petition for writ of mand amus having been filed herein on August 13, 2021 , and the sa me having been duly considered, because it is the opi nion of this Court that the writ should not issue , it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and the same is, hereby denied

. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neele y, J.