Background
Amber Nicole Perez, proceeding pro se, petitioned for a writ of mandamus in litigation arising from cause number 26-05-93630-B in the 135th District Court of Victoria County. The respondent was Judge Kemper Stephen Williams III.
Perez asked the court of appeals to compel the trial court either to rule on pending motions or to produce an assignment order identifying the judge authorized to preside. She asserted that the trial court had not ruled on a motion filed August 14, 2026, and other allegedly ripe motions, while another district judge was signing orders in the case without an assignment order.
The Court’s Holding
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals denied the petition. It reiterated that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and that Perez bore the burden of proving both a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court and the absence of an adequate remedy by appeal.
After examining the petition, the record supplied by Perez, and the applicable law, the court concluded that she had not met that burden. The memorandum opinion did not separately decide whether the motions had remained pending for an unreasonable time or whether an assignment order was legally required.
Key Takeaways
- A mandamus relator must establish both a clear abuse of discretion and the lack of an adequate appellate remedy.
- Self-represented litigants must satisfy the same burden required of other mandamus applicants.
- The court denied relief based on the petition and record before it without expressly resolving Perez’s underlying assertions about delayed rulings or judicial assignment.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that allegations of unruled-upon motions or uncertainty about a presiding judge’s authority do not, standing alone, secure mandamus relief. The relator must provide a record and legal showing sufficient to establish every requirement for the extraordinary remedy.