Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied, and Memorandum Opinion filed June 19, 2008.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-08-00462 -CV
____________
IN RE RALPH ARNOLD JACKSON, Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
On June 2, 2008, relator Ralph Arnold Jackson filed paperwork thatBbased upon the relief requested thereinBwe have construed as a petition for writ of mandamus.[1] No record has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7. As best we can determine, relator has asked that we order the respondent to rule on his pending habeas corpus petition, which he claims was filed on May 9, 2008. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.
When a motion is properly filed and pending before a trial court, the act of giving consideration to and ruling upon that motion is a ministerial act, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial court to act. Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.BSan Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). A trial court has a reasonable time to perform the ministerial duty of considering and ruling on a matter that was properly filed and before the court. See In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.BAmarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). No bright-line defines the boundaries of what may be considered reasonable. See id. Instead, whether the judge has acted within a reasonable time depends upon the particular circumstances of the case, and rests on a Amyriad of criteria.@ See id.
The absence of a mandamus record prevents us from evaluating the circumstances of this case and, consequently, the merits of relator=s complaints. See Barnes, 832 S.W.2d at 426 (AEven a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.@). Relator had the obligation to provide us with evidence against which we could test the reasonableness of the court=s alleged one-month delay. See Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 229. We must therefore conclude that relator has not established his entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus in case number 14-08-00462-CV, and all other requests for relief contained in that petition.
PER CURIAM
Petition Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed, June 19, 2008.
Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges, and Justices Fowler and Boyce.
[1] We are to liberally construe the pleadings of a party acting pro se. See Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426-27 (Tex. App.BHouston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding).