DENIED and Opinion Filed February 11, 2019
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-00130-CV
IN RE SEAN D. CLANCY, Relator
Original Proceeding from the 199th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 199-56020-2018
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Brown, Schenck, and Reichek
Opinion by Justice Reichek
In this original proceeding, relator seeks a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to
vacate its January 18, 2019 temporary orders and to conduct a temporary orders hearing at which
relator may present evidence and argument. Relator complains of the substance of the temporary
orders and preliminary rulings granting his prior counsel’s motion to withdraw, denying relator’s
motion for continuance, and refusing to consider evidence offered by relator in opposition to the
temporary orders.
To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly
abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co.,
148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). As the party seeking relief, the relator
has the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient mandamus record to establish his right to
mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Rules
52.3 and 52.7 require the relator to provide “a certified or sworn copy” of certain documents,
including any order complained of, any other document showing the matter complained of, and
every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief that was filed in any underlying
proceeding. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1).
Here, the mandamus record does not include a certified or sworn copy of a motion for
continuance, an order denying the motion for continuance, the transcripts of the November 15,
2018 or January 18, 2019 hearings, or any of the petitions or motions filed in the Collin County
proceeding, including counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel, relator’s petition, the real party in
interest’s counter-petition, and relator’s motion in opposition to the temporary orders. This record
is insufficient to establish the trial court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we deny relator’s
petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if the
court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).
/Amanda L. Reichek/
AMANDA L. REICHEK
JUSTICE
190130F.P05
–2–