Background
Ellis Farley, acting without counsel, challenged what he called an unsigned temporary final child-custody order. He petitioned for mandamus directing the judge of the 76th Judicial District Court of Titus County and the court’s official reporter to prepare and provide, at no cost under his asserted Rule 145 cost waiver, transcripts of prior hearings and bench remarks as well as audio records of in-chambers interviews with the children.
Farley also sought emergency relief staying the trial court’s August 7, 2026, oral custody rulings and immediately returning the children to him. He claimed that court personnel had blocked his access to records and demanded an improper $2,050 payment, but his petition contained no supporting documents or certified mandamus record. A later filing supplied an exhibit index, Farley’s recollections, and descriptions of communications and docket activity, but none of the listed exhibits or other competent evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth Court of Appeals denied the mandamus petition. It held that its general mandamus authority under Section 22.221(b) of the Texas Government Code extends to specified judges, not official court reporters. Although the court may issue mandamus against other persons when necessary to enforce its jurisdiction, the record did not show that relief against the reporter was necessary for that purpose.
The court also held that Farley failed to provide a petition and record satisfying Rules 52.3 and 52.7 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. His petition omitted a table of contents and index of authorities, did not support its factual assertions with citations to competent record evidence, and included no certified or sworn copies of material documents. His purported supplemental record could not cure those defects because no original record had been filed and the supplement contained descriptions rather than exhibits or other competent evidence. The court also denied his request for emergency custody relief.
Key Takeaways
- A Texas court of appeals generally lacks mandamus jurisdiction over an official court reporter unless relief against that person is necessary to enforce the appellate court’s jurisdiction.
- A mandamus relator bears the burden of supplying a sufficient record, including certified or sworn copies of material documents and evidentiary support for factual assertions.
- An exhibit index, personal recollections, and detailed descriptions of alleged documents or communications do not substitute for competent evidence in the mandamus record.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that mandamus relief depends not only on the asserted underlying wrong but also on strict compliance with appellate filing and record requirements. Even detailed allegations concerning withheld transcripts, fee demands, or custody proceedings cannot be reviewed when the relator supplies no competent evidentiary record.
It also marks the jurisdictional limit on seeking mandamus directly against Texas court personnel: absent a showing that relief is necessary to protect the appellate court’s own jurisdiction, a court reporter is not a proper mandamus respondent in the court of appeals.