Opinion
NO. 09-11-00705-CV
01-12-2012
IN RE KAREN WILLIAMSON
Original Proceeding
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Karen Williamson petitions for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to grant a temporary restraining order in Williamson's dispute with her neighbors. Williamson's petition discusses additional complaints about the trial judge, other judges who have made rulings in the present suit in other litigation previously pursued by Williamson, and the judges' support staff. Many of her complaints concern matters that occurred years ago, but in this petition Williamson's principal complaint appears to be that the trial court has not granted a temporary restraining order.
We have the power to compel a judge to rule on a pending motion if the trial court has a clear duty to act and refuses to do so. See In re Am. Media Consol., 121 S.W.3d 70, 72-73 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding). Relator's timeline appears to indicate that her request for a temporary restraining order has been considered and denied on at least one occasion. The granting or denial of a temporary restraining order concerns equitable relief. See Gardner v. Stewart, No. 07-02-0513-CV, 2004 WL 62713, at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan.14, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.) (An abuse of discretion does not exist if some evidence reasonably supported the decision.). The granting or denial of equitable relief lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Fleetwood v. Med Ctr. Bank, 786 S.W.2d 550, 556 (Tex. App.—Austin 1990, writ denied). In this case, Williamson has not described facts that would make the issuance of a temporary restraining order mandatory. From the mandamus petition we cannot determine that the trial court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.