T hi s pr oce edi n g a r i s es ou t of Cau s e N o. 2007- T A1- 01684, s t y l ed B exa r C o u n t y et al. v. G a rr

y D a vid 1 G al l ar do , f

i l ed i n the 1 6 6 t h J ud i cial D i st rict C o urt, B ex ar C o un t y, T ex as. i i i i i i



### OPIN ION No . 0 4- 08 -0 04 24 -C V IN RE Gar

ry David GA LLARDO Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 Opinion by : Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Sitt ing: Alma L . L ópez, Chief J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and f

iled: J uly

30, 2008 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED Relator has been incar cer ated since J une 29, 2005 in a fede ral prison in K entucky
. On J une 13, 2008, he filed a

petition for writ of m andamus in which he seeks “a temporary restra ining or der (TRO), a writ of prohibition, or an order to c ease and desist” a g ainst Be x ar County , Texas, which h as i n i t i at ed a d el i n qu en tp ro p er t y t ax s u i taga i n s th i m i n t h e B ex ar C o u n t y Di s t ri ct C o u rt . Al t h o u gh it is unclear pr ecise ly

what re lief petitioner se eks, the ba sis of his request is that the tena nt leasing his pr operty while he has been incar cer ated failed to pay the taxes on the proper

ty pursuant to “a

n implied contrac t.” Relator c ontends his tenant save d the t ax money in order to use it to purchase the pr op e rt y in t he fo re c los ur e sal e that w ou ld e ns ue fo llo wi ng the de lin qu e nt t a x suit . Re la tor a lso contends he wrote to the San A ntonio Pol ice De partment a nd reque s t ed that the tenant be04
- 08
- 00 42 4- CV

- 2- inv e sti g a te d c ri min a lly , b ut w a s in fo rm e d b y the po lic e that hi s r e me dy fo r a ny inj ur ie s in c ur

re d mu st be soug h t in civil court. I t appea rs that re lator now see ks either to enjoin B exar County from proce eding with the delinquent tax sui t ag ainst his property or a stay in the proce eding s so that he may , in the interim, obtain a civil judg ment ag ainst the t en an t t h at h e would then use to pay the delinquent prope rty

taxes and obviate the ne ed for the under ly ing lawsuit. Be cause it is uncle ar w hat ty pe of r elief r elator se eks, we discuss two possible interpretations of his petiti on. DI SCU SSIO N F ir st, re la tor ’s pe tit ion

fo r w ri t of

mand a mus may be c on str ue d a s re qu e sti ng thi s c ourt to
e njo in B e xar

County fr om p ro c e e din g wi th i ts f or e c los ur e a c tio n a g a ins t his pr op e rt y . O n th is b a sis , we wo uld dis mis s r e la tor ’s pe tit ion fo r l a c k o f j ur isd ic tio n. Th e Te xas G ov e rn me nt C od e g ra nts thi s
c ourt po we r t o is su e wr its of

mand a mus a g a ins t a

jud g e of a di st ri ct or c ounty

c ourt or a g a ins t a judge of a district court who is ac ting a s a mag istrate at a court of inquiry
. See T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 2 2
. 2 2 1 ( b ) ( V e r

n o n 2 0 0 4 )
. T h e s tatute d o e s n o t c o n te mp late th e p o w e r to is s u e a w rit of
mand a mus a g a ins t a

pla int if f i n a c ivi l pr oc e e din g in or de r to e njo in that pa rt y fr om p ro c e e din g wi th
a ca use of a ction. See id. Thus , in te rp re te d a s a pe tit ion to e njo in B e xar

County fr om p ur su ingits delinquent tax lawsuit, relator’s re quest should be dismissed. Second, re lator’s pe tition m ay be const ru ed as asking this court to gr ant a stay of the underlying la

wsuit in the district c ourt on the g rounds that the district cour t judge failed to rule on a filed motion. To obtain a writ of mandamus compelling the trial cour t to consider and r

ule on a motion, a relat o r m u s t es t ablish that the trial cour t: (1) had a

leg al duty

to perfor

m a nondiscretionar

y act; (2) was a sked to perf orm the ac t; and (3) f

ailed or r efuse d to do so. In re M olina , 94 S.W .3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—San Antoni o 2003, orig
. proce eding ). We consider va rious fac tors04
- 08
- 00 42 4- CV

- 3- in determining whether

a motion has bee n pending for a n unrea sonable tim e, including the trial court’s a ctual knowledg e of the pending motion, its overt ref usal to act on it, the state of the cour t’s docket, and the court’s inhere nt power to control its own docket. Ex parte Bate s, 65 S.W .3d 133, 13 5- 36 (T e x. Ap p. —A mari llo 20 01 , o ri g . p ro c e e din g ). Whe the r t he de lay in r uli ng on a mot ion is
unrea son ab l e depe nds on the circ umstances of eac h case
. Id. A re lator ca rries the burden of providing this court with a suffic ient rec o rd to establish a rig ht to mandamus relief
. W alker v

. Pack er, 82 7 S. W .2 d 83 3, 83 7 (T e x. 19 92 ) ( or ig . p ro c e e din g ); se e als o T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(j), 52.7(a)
. I n th is c a se , r e la tor ha s fa ile d to pr ov ide thi s c ourt wi th a fi le -s ta mpe d c op y

of his mot ion

to stay the underlying la

wsuit. I nstead, he has mere ly provided us with an unof

ficial c opy

of his answe r to the orig inal petition, which contains his motion to stay . Relator has not established that the trial court is ac tually

awa re of the re quest for a

stay and/or has ref

used t o rule on it, nor has he established
a ny of the c ir c ums tanc e s n e c e ssa ry to d e te rm ine if

his re qu e st h a s b e e n p e nd ingfo r a n unr e a so na

ble time. Be cause rela tor has not provided this court with a record upon which mandamus relief ma y be g rante d, his petition for a writ of ma ndamus should be denied. CO NC LU SION Be cause rela tor is not entitled to the relief soug ht, the petition is DENI ED. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a)
. Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice