Lee-Mims v. Texas — Court denies mandamus petition challenging trial court jurisdiction

Case
In Re Kertrina Lee-Mims
Court
Texas Court of Appeals, Thirteenth District
Date Decided
July 6, 2026
Docket No.
13-26-00475-CV
Topics
Mandamus, Trial Court Jurisdiction, Pro Se Litigation

Background

Kertrina Lee-Mims, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel a trial court to dismiss an underlying lawsuit. Lee-Mims argued that the trial court’s jurisdiction had automatically expired by operation of law under Texas Family Code §§ 263.401 and 263.4011. She also filed a motion requesting an immediate temporary stay of the trial court proceedings pending resolution of her mandamus petition.

The Court’s Holding

The Thirteenth District denied Lee-Mims’s petition for writ of mandamus and her motion for temporary stay. The court reaffirmed that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when: (1) a trial court clearly abuses its discretion and the petitioner lacks an adequate remedy by appeal, or (2) a trial court issues an order beyond its jurisdiction, rendering that order void ab initio.

The court emphasized that the petitioner bears the burden to establish entitlement to mandamus relief, including providing clear and concise arguments with appropriate citations to legal authority and the record. Even pro se litigants must meet this procedural standard. Lee-Mims failed to meet her burden, and the court found no basis for extraordinary relief.

Key Takeaways

  • Mandamus remains an extraordinary remedy with a high threshold, requiring more than mere disagreement with trial court jurisdiction
  • Pro se litigants must comply with procedural requirements and provide clear legal arguments with proper citations, despite self-representation status
  • The petitioner bears the burden to establish both factual and legal grounds for mandamus relief
  • Lack of an adequate appellate remedy is a prerequisite for mandamus consideration

Why It Matters

This decision reinforces the stringent requirements for obtaining mandamus relief and clarifies that pro se status does not excuse compliance with procedural standards for presenting arguments. Courts will not grant this extraordinary remedy simply because a litigant disagrees with a trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction.

The opinion underscores the importance of clearly articulating jurisdictional defects and supporting arguments with proper legal citations when seeking mandamus relief, especially for self-represented litigants who must satisfy the same substantive and procedural requirements as those represented by counsel.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top