Court Opinion

ID: 9387172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-15 17:08:25.954198+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:11.968165
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-23-00069-CV

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

                                       IN RE ALAN EOFF

                           On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

                  Before Justices Benavides, Tijerina, and Peña
                     Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña1

        On February 21, 2023, relator Alan Eoff, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ

of mandamus through which he asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by issuing

monetary sanctions against him, ordering a child custody evaluation report to be filed

under seal, and appointing an ad litem for a minor child to serve in the dual role of

         1 See TEX. R. APP. 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.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
guardian ad litem and attorney ad litem.

       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). To obtain relief by writ of mandamus, a

relator must establish that an underlying order is void or is a clear abuse of discretion and

there is no adequate appellate remedy. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708,

712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); see In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124,

135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex.

1992) (orig. proceeding). The relator bears the burden of proof. See In re H.E.B. Grocery

Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Walker, 827

S.W.2d at 840.

       The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the limited record provided by relator, the response filed by the real party in interest,

Bonnie Williams, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his

burden of proof to obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of

mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.4, 52.8(a).

                                                                L. ARON PEÑA JR.
                                                                Justice

Delivered and filed on the
14th day of April, 2023.

                                             2