Background - Relator Thelma Doris Ferry, pro se, sought a writ of mandamus to vacate an order dismissing her motion to vacate judgment and to disqualify the trial judge from further involvement in two family-court causes. - Ferry alleged the trial court abused its discretion and violated her procedural due process by refusing to allow testimony, consider evidence, or hold a hearing before dismissing her motions. - This mandamus petition was filed in the Thirteenth Court of Appeals (originating from the 319th Judicial District Court, Nueces County) and assigned to Justice Everardo Garcia. - The appellate court noted Ferry’s extensive history of prior appeals and original proceedings raising similar complaints about the same trial judge and orders. - Mandamus relief requires the relator to prove a clear abuse of discretion and lack of an adequate appellate remedy, and to supply a record/appendix with competent evidence and legal argument under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52. - The Court concluded Ferry failed to show entitlement to extraordinary relief and denied the petition for writ of mandamus. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held | |---|---:|---:|---:| | Whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing Ferry’s motion without a hearing | Ferry: court acted arbitrarily and dismissed motions without hearing or considering evidence | Respondent: court actions were within discretion, and mandamus is not warranted | Denied — relator failed to establish clear abuse of discretion | | Whether Ferry was deprived of procedural due process by being denied opportunity to testify and present evidence | Ferry: denial of opportunity to testify/evidence violated due process | Respondent: no mandamus relief; appellant did not meet burden to show violation | Denied — relator did not prove due-process violation warranting mandamus | | Whether mandamus is appropriate given availability of appellate remedies | Ferry: sought immediate relief via mandamus to undo orders and remove judge | Respondent: appellate remedies and standards weigh against mandamus; relator hasn’t shown absence of adequate appellate remedy | Denied — relator didn’t show no adequate appellate remedy exists | | Whether relator furnished the required record/appendix and competent evidence under TRAP 52 | Ferry: submitted petition but alleged record insufficiently developed to support claims | Respondent: relator bears burden to include competent evidence and concise legal argument; Ferry failed to meet Rule 52 requirements | Denied — relator failed to provide record/appendix and legal showing required for mandamus | ### Key Cases Cited In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus relief requires showing of clear abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy) In re Christus Santa Rosa Health Sys., 492 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. 2016) (mandamus appropriate to correct clear abuse when no adequate appellate remedy exists) In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708 (Tex. 2016) (abuse of discretion defined as arbitrary, unreasonable, or unsupported by guiding legal principles) Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. 2012) (standards for assessing trial-court rulings and discretionary review) In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524 (Tex. 2014) (weighing benefits of mandamus review against detriments) In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (consideration of adequacy of appellate remedies in mandamus context) Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (relator bears burden to prove entitlement to mandamus) Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992) (even pro se applicants must show entitlement to extraordinary relief)