In re Douglas

Full title: IN RE RALPH O. DOUGLAS, Relator

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourteenth District, Houston

Date published: Mar 10, 2011

No. 14-11-00145-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 10, 2011)

Opinion

No. 14-11-00145-CV

Opinion filed March 10, 2011.

Original Proceeding Writ of Mandamus.

Panel consists of Justices BROWN, BOYCE, and JAMISON.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

On February 24, 2011, relator, Ralph O. Douglas, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In his petition, relator requests this court to compel the Honorable Michael Gomez, presiding judge of the 129th District Court of Harris County, Texas, to rule on a motion to compel that he claims to have filed in his court.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig.proceeding). Consideration of a motion that is properly filed and before the court is a ministerial act. State ex rel. Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (orig.proceeding) (op. on reh'g). A relator must establish the trial court (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed to do so. In re Keeter, 134 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. App.-Waco 2003, orig. proceeding). A relator must show that the trial court received, was aware of, and asked to rule on the motion. In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.-Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding). Filing something with the district clerk's office does not mean the trial court is aware of it; nor is the clerk's knowledge imputed to the trial court. Id. at n. 2.

Relator has not provided a file-stamped copy of his motion demonstrating it is actually pending in the trial court. Absent a showing the trial court is aware of and been asked to rule on his motions, relator has not established his entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relator's petition for writ of mandamus.