in Re Juan Miguel Mata
04-15-00214-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 9, 2015Background
- Juan Miguel Mata, an incarcerated relator, sought mandamus review after the trial court failed to rule on several motions in an ongoing protective-order proceeding that had been extended while he was imprisoned.
- An agreed protective order (entered Jan. 2011) was extended by the trial court in Sept. 2014 under Tex. Fam. Code §85.025(c) and remains in effect through Dec. 2016.
- After the extension, Mata filed multiple motions in the county court (motion to amend/quash/examine evidence; objection to protective order; motion to appeal; motion to sign order) and sent letters requesting rulings.
- Mata filed a pro se mandamus petition in April 2015 (initially deficient for lack of record); he later filed a supplemental petition with exhibits; the trial judge voluntarily recused and did not respond to the mandamus request.
- This court limited relief to compelling the trial court to rule on pending motions within a reasonable time, denying Mata’s other requested relief as not appropriate on mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court has a ministerial duty to consider and rule on properly filed motions within a reasonable time | Mata: court failed to rule on his pending motions despite notice and requests | Respondent judge: no response in record; implicitly argued no grounds shown for mandamus | Court: Yes. Mandamus conditionally granted in part — direct trial court to rule on pending motions; court will issue writ only if trial court fails to comply |
| Whether additional relief requested by Mata (beyond ordering rulings) is appropriate on mandamus | Mata sought other specific relief from this court (e.g., substantive rulings) | Real party/respondent opposed broader relief; trial court’s merits decisions are not for mandamus to dictate | Court: Denied Mata’s other requests; may not command specific substantive rulings, only compel ministerial act to rule |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Ramirez, 994 S.W.2d 682 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998) (mandamus may compel trial court to act on pending motions)
- Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997) (ruling on pending motions is ministerial and subject to mandamus)
- In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004) (mandamus appropriate where movant made reasonable efforts to bring motions to court’s attention)
- B.C. v. Rhodes, 116 S.W.3d 878 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003) (trial court retains power to modify protective orders upon notice and hearing)