in Re Marte C. Guillen, 13-16-00607-CV

Relator Marte C. Guillen, pro se, filed an original mandamus petition asking the court to (1) compel the trial judge to vacate an August 29, 2016 final judgment in an underlying tax-foreclosure case, and (2) compel the assigned judge to vacate a nunc pro tunc order that clarified denial of Guillen’s motion to recuse Judge J. Manuel Bañales.
Guillen also moved for an emergency stay of the final judgment pending resolution of the mandamus petition.
The recusal motion was initially addressed by Judge Ana Lisa Garza using a form order that had been drafted to grant recusal; she struck through “granted,” handwrote “denied,” and initialed the change, but the printed third paragraph still stated the judge was recused.
Judge Garza later entered a nunc pro tunc order explaining the paragraph was a clerical error and clarifying the recusal motion was denied.
Cameron County and La Feria Independent School District responded to Guillen’s stay motion; the appellate court reviewed the petition, the law, and the record.
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals determined Guillen had not shown entitlement to extraordinary mandamus relief and denied both the petition and the emergency stay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus should compel vacation of the trial court's August 29, 2016 final judgment	Guillen argued the final judgment should be vacated (presumably based on procedural/recusal defects)	Respondents asserted mandamus is inappropriate because relator failed to show clear abuse of discretion and lacks lack of adequate appellate remedy	Denied — relator did not meet burden for mandamus
Whether mandamus should compel vacation of the nunc pro tunc order clarifying denial of recusal	Guillen sought to vacate the nunc pro tunc correction as inconsistent with earlier form order	Respondents maintained the nunc pro tunc order corrected a clerical error and accurately reflected the denial; mandamus inappropriate	Denied — court accepted the nunc pro tunc explanation and found no basis for relief
Whether an emergency stay of the final judgment should issue	Guillen sought a stay of enforcement of the final judgment pending mandamus	Respondents opposed emergency stay	Denied — stay denied along with mandamus petition

In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy; relator bears burden to show clear abuse and no adequate appellate remedy)
In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus proper to correct a clear abuse of discretion when no adequate appellate remedy exists)
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (relator bears burden to prove both elements for mandamus)
In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. 2016) (abuse of discretion occurs when ruling is arbitrary, unreasonable, or disregards guiding legal principles)
Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. 2012) (standards for abuse of discretion review)
In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. 2014) (weighing adequacy of appellate remedy when considering mandamus)
In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (balancing benefits of mandamus review against detriments)