Opinion
05-22-00368-CV 05-22-00369-CV05-22-00378-CV
05-27-2022
IN RE HOWARD HOLLAND, Relator
Original Proceedings from the 422nd Judicial District Court Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 31608-422, 31609-422 & 31610-422
Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Goldstein
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
Howard Holland has petitioned the Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule on two motions he represents he filed on January 7, 2022. We deny the petition.
Relator's petition does not comply with the rules of appellate procedure in that it is not properly certified and is not supported by a record of certified or sworn documents. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j), 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1); In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758-59 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 132.001 (describing how inmate may authenticate documents as sworn copies).
Furthermore, even if relator had filed a complying petition, he has not shown the trial court has had a reasonable time to rule upon the motions. See In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661-62 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding) (no mandamus relief absent proof motion was filed, presented to the trial court with a request for a ruling, and trial court given reasonable time to issue ruling); In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mandamus relief not available until trial court has had reasonable opportunity to rule on motion). In this case, relator asserts he filed his motions on January 7, 2022, reminded the trial court that they were pending by letter dated March 7, 2022, and filed his petition seeking mandamus relief on April 20, 2022. Even assuming the truth of relator's assertions, we cannot conclude relator has shown he is entitled to mandamus relief after such a short period of time.
We deny relator's petition. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).