Summary
noting required action relator must show in order to request mandamus compelling trial court ruling and trial court has reasonable time to consider and rule on request
Summary of this case from In re JacksonOpinion
No. 07-18-00114-CV
05-04-2018
IN RE BRADLEY NEAL GOODSON, RELATOR
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Relator Bradley Neal Goodson, an Oklahoma prison inmate appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus. The respondent appears to be the Honorable James Anderson, Judge of Randall County Court at Law Number One. The real party in interest is Amanda Brooke Holloway. Relator seeks an order compelling Judge Anderson to proceed to adjudicate a bill of review proceeding relator initiated in County Court at Law Number One. Based on the following discussion, we will deny relator's petition.
See Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. 1979) (outlining bill of review procedure). Relator's bill of review concerns an action brought under the Family Code. The requirements of Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code therefore do not apply to relator's present original proceeding. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 14.001—.014 (West 2017).
The writ of mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). A trial court clearly abuses its discretion when it fails to rule within a reasonable time on a properly-presented motion. Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding).
In a mandamus proceeding it is the relator's burden to demonstrate entitlement to the relief requested. In re Posey, No. 07-03-00518-CV, 2004 Tex. App. Lexis 695, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 22, 2004, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). With the petition, the relator must file a record containing a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator's claim for relief and which was filed in any underlying proceeding. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a). The petition must contain a certification that the relator has reviewed the petition and concluded that each factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j).
Before a writ of mandamus will issue in circumstances like those presented here, the relator must establish that 1) the trial court had a legal duty to perform a non-discretionary act, 2) performance was demanded, and 3) the court refused to act. O'Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Posey, 2004 Tex. App. Lexis 695, at *2 (citing Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex. 1979)).
Solely for this discussion we will assume that relator's petition sufficiently meets the form and content requirements for a petition in an original proceeding and the record was properly authenticated. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3, 52.7.
According to relator, his bill of review proceeding has been awaiting disposition since February 1, 2018. With his mandamus petition, relator has submitted a record that includes his bill of review petition and exhibits, Holloway's response and relator's reply. However, nothing in the mandamus record conclusively demonstrates relator requested Judge Anderson to act on his bill of review. Indeed, nothing shows that Judge Anderson is even aware that relator has filed a bill of review in County Court at Law Number One. A trial court cannot be expected to consider a request for relief not called to its attention. In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). Filing a request for relief with the district clerk does not prove the motion or pleading was brought to the attention of the trial court because the clerk's knowledge of the filing is not imputed to the trial court. Id. Therefore, a "[relator] must prove that the trial court received notice of the pleading . . . . Merely alleging that something was filed with or mailed to the district clerk does not satisfy that requirement." In re Metoyer, No. 07-07-00506-CR, 2008 Tex. App. Lexis 243, at *4 n.2, (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 14, 2008, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citations omitted).
Furthermore, even when a request for relief is called to the trial court's attention it has a reasonable time to consider and rule on the matter. In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). A litigant is not entitled to a hearing at whatever time he selects. In re Quiroz, No. 05-17-00742-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 7423, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 7, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (citing In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 229). What constitutes a reasonable time depends on any number of case-unique factors, which include not only the trial court's actual knowledge of the motion but "the state of the court's docket, and the existence of other judicial and administrative matters which must be addressed first." In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 228-29. The trial court's inherent power to control its own docket must also be considered. Id. at 229 ("a trial court has great discretion over its docket").
In sum, the record does not conclusively establish that Judge Anderson was requested to act on relator's bill of review but unreasonably refused. See In re Posey, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 695, at *2-3 (discussing authorities and finding in part that the relator's petition did not demonstrate his motion was called to the attention of the respondent trial court judge); cf. In re Webb, No. 07-15-00050-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 7532 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jul. 21, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (mandamus conditionally granted when the record evidenced that the trial court stated in a letter to the prison-inmate relator it would not set relator's requested probate hearing until after relator's release from prison and the record also showed relator's projected release date was 2077).
Because relator has not met his mandamus burden, his petition is denied.
James T. Campbell
Justice