NUMBER 13-14-00451-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE JESUS MENDOZA
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Benavides
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Jesus Mendoza, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus
in the foregoing cause on August 8, 2014, seeking to compel the trial court to vacate
relator’s final decree of divorce and to grant the relief sought by relator in various
pleadings filed in the underlying proceeding.2
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2 This petition for writ of mandamus is the second original proceeding arising from trial court cause
number F-1591-11-A in the 92nd District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. See In re Mendoza, No. 13-12-
00253-CV, 2012 WL 1484111 (Tex. App. Apr. 23, 2012, orig. proceeding) (per curiam mem. op.). This trial
court cause number is also currently under appeal in appellate cause number 13-14-00420-CV, Jesus
Mendoza v. Silvia Mendoza.
1
To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator must
show that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by
appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to mandamus
relief, and this burden is a heavy one. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003)
(orig. proceeding); see also Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must
show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”).
Those seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus must follow the applicable
procedural rules. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52. In addition to other requirements, the
relator must include a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent evidence
included in the appendix or record,” and must also provide “a clear and concise argument
for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or
record.” See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. Fundamentally, the relator must provide the
reviewing court with a complete and adequate record that is sufficient to support the claim
for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the
appendix); id. R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the record); Walker v.
Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808,
813 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain
mandamus relief in accordance with the foregoing principles. See In re Prudential Ins.
Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is
2
DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Relator’s pending motion to proceed without
payment of costs is GRANTED. Relator’s pending motion to assign senior visiting judges
to handle this original proceeding is DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed this the
12th day of August, 2014.
3