### NUMBER 13 - 17 - 00 615 - CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE THELMA DORIS FERRY

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.


## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria 1 By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, Thelma Doris Ferry seeks to compel the respondent to “ vacate and render null and void the Order for Access to Property Division as Per Final Decree ” and to prevent the respondent from presiding over any further matters related to trial court cause number 2013

- FAM

- 4013

- G

. 2

1 See T EX

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

. R. A PP

. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opi nions and memorandum opinions).

2 This cause arises from the 319th Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas, and the respondent in this origina l proceeding is the Honorable Everardo Garcia, who is presiding over this matter pursuant to an order of assignment rendered on July 26, 2017 by the presiding judge of the Fifth Administrative Judicial Region. See generally T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.2

. Relator has previously filed an appeal2

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co. , 492 S.W .3d 300 , 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)

. Mandamus relief is proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys. , 492 S.W.3d 276 , 279 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court ’ s ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am. , 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia , 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 2012). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co ., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Te x. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 136 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator bears the burden of proving both that the trial court abused its discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists

. In r e H.E.B. Grocery Co. , 492 S.W.3d at 302 ; Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) ; see also Barnes v. State , 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) ( “ Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mand amus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks. ” ). In addition to other requirements, the relator must include a statement of facts supported by citations to “ competent evidence included in the appendix or record, ” and must also prov ide “ a clear and concise argument for the

and two o riginal proceedings in this Court. See In re Ferry , No. 13

- 17

- 00402

- CV, 2017 WL 4250205, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi Sept. 26, 2017, Orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying relator ’ s petition for writ of mandamus seeking to disqualify the judge of the trial court); In re Ferry , No. 13

- 17

- 00326

- CV, 2017 WL 4250206, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Ch risti Sept. 26, 2017, orig. proceeding ) (mem. op.) (denying relator ’ s petition for writ of mand amus seeking to set aside a “ First Amended Retirement Benefits Court Order ” and to compel the judge of the trial court to withdraw from presiding over the case); Ferry v. Ferry , No. 13

- 16

- 00148

- CV, 2016 WL 3225670, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi June 9, 2 016, no pet.) (per curiam mem. op.)(dismissing the appeal of an order denying a motion to disqualify the trial judge).3

contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record

. ” See generally T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 52.3. In this regard, it is clear that the relator must furnish an appendix or record suff icient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law , is of the opinion that the relator has not shown herself entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, we DENY the petitio n for writ of mandamus

. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P . 52.8(a). NORA L. LONGORIA Justice

D elivered and filed the 2nd day of November , 2017

.