in Re Reidie James Jackson, Relator
07-17-00224-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 21, 2017Background
- Relator Reidie James Jackson, pro se, sued defendants David Ellis and Andrew Gratz in Potter County; Ellis and Gratz moved for partial summary judgment in October 2015.
- Jackson filed a response in November 2015; he later filed a December 2016 motion asking the court to rule and a May 2017 letter requesting rulings and a trial setting.
- The defendants’ summary-judgment motion bears the district clerk’s electronic file stamp; Jackson’s December motion and May letter lack file stamps but Jackson submitted unsworn declarations asserting they were filed/mailed to the clerk and judge.
- Jackson sought a writ of mandamus from the Amarillo Court of Appeals to compel Judge Ana Estevez to rule on the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment.
- The mandamus record did not show the trial judge had been notified, had conducted a hearing, or had ordered submission of the motion; there was no evidence the judge received Jackson’s December motion or May letter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus should compel the trial judge to rule on a pending pretrial motion | Jackson argued the judge failed to rule on the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment and on his filings, warranting mandamus | Judge had not been shown to have received notice; no proof of refusal to act | Denied — relator did not prove the judge received the filings or refused to act |
| Whether filing with the district clerk alone proves the trial court was called to attention | Jackson relied on filing/mailed declarations to show notice | Clerk’s knowledge is not imputed to the trial court; filing alone insufficient | Filing with clerk or mailing does not establish trial-court notice |
| Whether relator met mandamus prerequisites (duty, demand, refusal) | Jackson asserted the court had a duty and had been demanded to act | Record did not establish the court was presented the motions or refused to rule | Relator failed to establish that the judge had a duty to act that was properly presented and refused |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate absent an adequate appellate remedy | Jackson claimed no adequate remedy by appeal for failure to rule | Mandamus appropriate only to correct clear abuse when no adequate appellate remedy exists; but prerequisites unmet here | Mandamus denied because relator failed to meet burden to show court received and refused to act |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus issues: correct clear abuse or violation of duty when no adequate appellate remedy exists)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (standards for mandamus relief)
- Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997) (trial court abuses discretion when it fails to rule on a properly presented pretrial motion within a reasonable time)
- O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus prerequisites: duty, demand, refusal)
- Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843 (Tex. 1979) (trial court must be shown to have been presented with a matter before mandamus will issue)
- In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001) (knowledge of the clerk is not imputed to the trial court; relator must prove the trial court received notice)