ORDER OF ABATEMENT
Pending before the Court is a petition for writ of mandamus filed by relator Rob L. Newby, acting pro se, seeking an order compelling the trial judge to rule on vari *300 ous motions. 1 For the reason that follows, we abate the proceeding.
Relator contends that, despite his requests the Honorable David M. McCoy, while sitting as judge of the 100th District Court, failed to rule on motions relator filed in a pending civil suit.
On our own motion, we first consider the proper parties to this proceeding. We take judicial notice that Judge McCoy has been suspended for an indefinite period as presiding judge of the 100th District Court by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct because of his indictment for alleged felony offenses. 2 We take further judicial notice that Senior District Judge John T. Forbis has been appointed to preside over the 100th District Court. 3
Rule 7 of the rules of appellate procedure pertains to the substitution of parties in pending appeals and original proceedings. Tex.R.App. P. 7. In part, Rule 7.2 provides that during an original proceeding against a public officer in an official capacity, if the officer ceases to hold office, the officer’s successor is automatically substituted as a party and “the court must abate the proceeding to allow the successor to reconsider the original party’s decision.” Tex.R.App. P. 7.2(a), (b);
see In re Whitfield,
Here, the duration of Judge McCoy’s suspension is indefinite. Thus, we consider whether an indefinite suspension from office and ceasing to hold office are sufficiently synonymous for application of Rule 7.2 to the facts presented. Mandamus relief can be granted in a proper case to enforce a trial court’s duty to perform the ministerial acts of giving consideration to and ruling on motions properly filed and pending before it.
In re Christensen,
We, therefore, order the substitution of the Honorable John T. Forbis as respondent in this original proceeding, see Tex. R.App. P. 7(a), and abate the proceeding for 60 days from the date of this opinion. During the abatement, relator shall, by written pleading filed with the clerk of the trial court, specifically identify (by name and date of filing) each motion on which he seeks a ruling; request in a contemporaneously filed writing that the trial court clerk present the pleading to Judge Forbis; obtain a ruling or documentation of the court’s refusal to rule; and amend his petition and appendix in this court accordingly.
It is so ordered.
ORDER OF ABATEMENT
On November 27, 2007, Relator Rob L. Newby, acting pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order compelling the Honorable David McCoy, then judge of the 100th judicial district court, to rule on various pending motions. On November 30, 2007, Judge McCoy was indefinitely suspended from office by the State Commission for Judicial Conduct. In his absence, Senior District Judge John T. Forbis was appointed to preside over the 100th district court.
Acting on our own motion, in an order of December 14, 2007, we determined that Rule 7.2 applied in this proceeding and required in the face of Judge McCoy’s indefinite suspension the substitution of Judge Forbis as respondent. 1 See Tex. R.App. P. 7.2(a), (b). We, therefore, ordered the substitution of Judge Forbis as respondent, abated the proceeding, and directed relator to bring to the trial court’s attention by pleading the matters on which he sought a ruling.
On March 3, 2008, relator filed in this court an amended petition for writ of mandamus. The appendix of the amended petition contained a document denominated “Motion Seeking a Ruling.” This was apparently a copy of the pleading relator filed in the trial court in response to the directive in our order of December 14. According to relator’s pleading, the motions before the trial court upon which he seeks a ruling are: (1) “Motion Requesting Issuance of Citation and Service of Process,” which relator asserts was filed February 2, 2007; (2) “Motion to Recuse,” which relator asserts was filed August 15, 2007; and (3) “Motion for Appointment of Counsel,” which relator asserts was filed October 17, 2007.
This court, on its own motion, takes judicial notice that since our order of December 14 Judge McCoy has resigned as judge of the 100th judicial district court and, on March 18, 2008, Governor Perry appointed the Honorable Stuart Messer *302 judge of that court. Judge Messer has taken office. 2
We again look to Rule 7.2 and order Judge Messer substituted as respondent in this proceeding. We abate this proceeding for sixty days from the date of this order so that Judge Messer may consider the pleadings on which relator seeks a ruling. Tex.R.App. P. 7.2(b). Relator shall obtain a ruling or documentation of the court’s refusal to rule and amend his petition and appendix in this court accordingly. The clerk of this court shall provide Judge Messer a copy of our December 14 order and relator’s amended petition for writ of mandamus filed in this court on March 3, 2008.
It is so ordered.
Notes
. Relator previously filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking similar relief which we denied.
In re Newby,
No. 07-07-0228-CV,
. The judge of a district court "may be suspended from office with or without pay by the [State Commission on Judicial Conduct] immediately on being indicted by a State or Federal grand jury for a felony offense or charged with a misdemeanor involving official misconduct.” Tex. Const, art. V, § 1-a.
. A court of appeals may take judicial notice of a fact even though the fact was not judicially noticed by the trial court.
Office of Pub. Util. Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm’n of Texas,
. Rule 7 of the rules of appellate procedure pertains to the substitution of parties in pending appeals and original proceedings. Tex. R.App. P. 7. In part, Rule 7.2 provides that during an original proceeding against a public officer in an official capacity, if the officer ceases to hold office, the officer's successor is automatically substituted as a party and "the court must abate the proceeding to allow the successor to reconsider the original party’s decision.” Tex.R.App. P. 7.2(a), (b);
see In re Whitfield,
. A court of appeals may take judicial notice of a fact even though the fact was not judicially noticed by the trial court.
Office of Pub. Util. Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm'n of Texas,