Background
Wesley E. Long, proceeding pro se, petitioned the Texas Third Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus in an original proceeding from Bell County. He complained that the trial court had failed or refused to rule on his motion to compel discovery.
Long was required to provide a record sufficient to establish his entitlement to the extraordinary remedy. When mandamus is sought to compel a ruling, the relator must show that the trial court had a legal duty to rule, was asked to rule, and refused to rule or failed to do so within a reasonable time.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Long’s mandamus petition. Although a trial court has a ministerial duty to consider and rule on properly filed and pending motions, Long did not provide a record showing that he had requested a hearing on his motion to compel.
Specifically, the record contained no correspondence to the trial judge or an appropriate court coordinator expressly requesting a hearing on the motion. On that record, Long failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief.
Key Takeaways
- A mandamus relator bears the burden of supplying a record sufficient to establish a right to relief.
- To compel a trial-court ruling, the relator must show that the court was asked to rule and then refused or failed to act within a reasonable time.
- Pro se status does not excuse a relator from satisfying the requirements for extraordinary relief.
Why It Matters
The opinion underscores that filing a motion alone may not establish grounds for mandamus based on judicial inaction. The record must demonstrate that the trial court was expressly asked to act, such as through a documented request for a hearing directed to the judge or appropriate court coordinator.