Opinion
No. 04-17-00812-CV
12-20-2017
IN RE Robert MARTINEZ
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Original Mandamus Proceeding PER CURIAM Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Irene Rios, Justice PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2016CI06633, styled Robert Martinez v. Emilia C. Martinez, pending in the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Michael Mery presiding.
On December 6, 2017, Relator Robert Martinez filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the trial court to rule on various pending motions.
When a motion is properly filed and pending before a trial court, the act of giving consideration to and ruling upon that motion is a ministerial act and mandamus may issue to compel the trial judge to act. Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). A relator has the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to establish a right to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a) (relator must file "a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator's claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding"); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992). In a case such as the one before us, a relator has the burden to provide the court of appeals with a record showing the motion was filed, the trial court was made aware of the motion, the motion has been pending for an unreasonable period of time, and the trial court has failed to rule. In re Gallardo, 269 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, orig. proceeding).
Martinez has provided this court with no record; therefore, Martinez has failed to establish that the motions in question were filed with the trial court, the trial court was made aware of the motions, and the trial court has expressly refused to rule on the motions for an unreasonable period of time. Martinez contends he has been unsuccessful in obtaining copies of the documents he has filed with the trial court because he is an indigent inmate. We must, however, hold indigent, pro se relators to the same procedural standards we apply to other litigants. See In re Mendoza, 467 S.W.3d 76, 79 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, orig. proceeding); Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding). "That [Martinez] may be acting pro se and be incarcerated matters not." In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 711 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding). "He and those in his position are obligated to abide by the pertinent rules of procedure." Id.; see also Barnes, 832 S.W.2d at 426 ("Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks."). Because Martinez has not provided a sufficient record to show that he is entitled to mandamus relief, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
PER CURIAM