Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed December 22, 2009.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
____________
NO. 14-09-00942-CV
NO. 14-09-01053-CV
____________
IN RE TED LAWRENCE ROBERTSON, Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
On November 9, 2009, relator, Ted Lawrence Robertson, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator requests that we compel the Honorable Bonnie Crane Hellums, presiding judge of the 247th District Court of Harris County, to grant his motion to vacate and/or set aside default judgment and protective order or, alternatively, to rule on that motion. Relator also requests that we compel the Honorable Robert Hinojosa, presiding judge of the 312th District Court of Harris County, to grant his motion to vacate and/or set aside default judgment and protective order or, alternatively, to rule on that motion.
As an initial matter, relator’s petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1). Notwithstanding this deficiency, relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief.
When a properly filed motion is filed and pending before the trial court, the act of giving consideration to and ruling on 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.—San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). To establish that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to rule, the relator must show that the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to perform a nondiscretionary act; (2) was asked to perform that act; and (3) failed or refused to do so. In re Shredder Co., L.L.C., 225 S.W.3d 676, 679 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2006, orig. proceeding). However, while we have jurisdiction to direct the trial court to rule on a motion, we may not instruct the trial court on how to rule. In re Ramirez, 994 S.W.2d 682, 684 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding).
Relator has not provided a sufficient record in this original proceeding. He has not attached file-stamped copies of the purportedly pending motions to his petition and, therefore, has not demonstrated that he filed the subject motions with either the 312th or 247th District Court. Relator claims he requested that the trial courts rule on his pending motions, but, again, he has not provided file-stamped copies of those motions requesting that the trial court rule on his motions. Therefore, relator has not established that the 312th and 247th District Courts abused any discretion by failing to rule on any motions filed in those courts. See In re Shredder Co., L.L.C., 225 S.W.3d at 679. Moreover, we cannot direct either the 312th or the 247th District Court to grant his pending motions. See In re Ramirez, 994 S.W.2d at 684.
Relator has not established his entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Anderson and Boyce.