• • • • • •
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-10-00418-CV
IN RE Richard PAYNE
Original Mandamus Proceeding
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice
Karen Angelini, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Delivered and Filed: June 23, 2010
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
On May 28, 2010, relator Richard Payne filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the trial court to rule on his “Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint to Include More and Different Facts and for Reconsideration” and his request for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
However, in order to obtain a petition for writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to consider and rule on a motion, a relator must establish that the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to perform a non-discretionary act; (2) was asked to perform the act; and (3) failed or refused to do so. In re Molina, 94 S.W.3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding). When a properly filed motion is pending before a trial court, the act of giving consideration to and ruling upon that motion is ministerial, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial judge to act. See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). However, relator has the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a) (“Relator must file with the petition [ ] a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992).
Here, relator has not provided this court with a file stamped copy of his motions or any other documents to show that a properly filed motion is pending before the trial court. Nor has relator established that the trial court has been made aware of his motions or has expressly refused to rule on them. See In re Isbell, No. 04-06-00558-CV, 2006 WL 3206075, at *2 (Tex. App.San Antonio November 8, 2006, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Based on the foregoing, we conclude relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
Additionally, relator filed an Application for Leave to File Petition for Writ of Mandamus. No leave is required to file a petition for a writ of mandamus in this court. Tex. R. App. P. 52. Therefore, relator’s motion for leave to file is DENIED AS MOOT.
PER CURIAM