Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, a petitioner sought mandamus relief against a trial judge, alleging undue delay in ruling on his pending motions after a summary judgment was entered against him. The trial judge had granted summary judgment on the basis that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies. For mandamus relief, the petitioner needed to demonstrate that his motions were pending for an unreasonable duration and that a request for a ruling was made and refused. However, the petitioner did not sufficiently show that the delay was unreasonable, leading to the denial of his petition for mandamus relief. Additionally, the petitioner sought relief against the district clerk for alleged failures in filing and recording motions and providing information. However, the court of appeals dismissed this part of the petition due to lack of jurisdiction, as it can only issue writs against a district clerk to protect or enforce its jurisdiction. The judgment was delivered by Justice Al Scoggins, with concurrence from Chief Justice Gray and Justice Davis, and the opinion was filed on April 17, 2014.
Legal Issues Addressed
Filing a Motion and Request for Rulingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Filing a motion alone does not suffice as a request for a ruling; the relator must actively request a decision from the court.
Reasoning: It is noted that merely filing a motion does not constitute a request for a ruling.
Jurisdiction over District Clerksubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district clerk unless it is to protect or enforce its jurisdiction.
Reasoning: However, the court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to issue a writ against a district clerk, except to protect or enforce its jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of this aspect of his petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Mandamus Relief Against Trial Courtsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The relator failed to show that the trial court's delay in ruling on the motion was unreasonable, resulting in the denial of mandamus relief.
Reasoning: Although he filed a request for a ruling on March 4, 2014, he has not demonstrated that his motion has been unreasonably delayed.
Mandamus Relief Requirementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The relator must demonstrate that a motion was properly filed and pending for a reasonable time, a request for a ruling was made, and the trial court refused to rule.
Reasoning: To obtain mandamus relief, a relator must prove: 1) the motion was properly filed and pending for a reasonable time; 2) a request for a ruling was made; and 3) the trial court refused to rule.