Opinion issued August 10, 2021
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-21-00310-CV
———————————
IN RE AUTRY LEE JONES, Relator
Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Autry Lee Jones, acting pro se, has filed a petition for writ of
mandamus asking this Court to direct the trial court rule on relator’s motion “to
reopen the estate of Bertha Pope” and “motion for subpoenas” filed by relator.1
1
The underlying case is In the Estate of Bertha Pope, Deceased, Cause No. 407996,
pending in Probate Court No. 4 of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable James
Horwitz presiding.
Relator’s petition does not comply with the requirements enumerated in
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(g), (k). For
example, the petition lacks an adequate appendix. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)
(requiring original proceedings to be filed with appendix that contains “a certified
or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the
matter complained of”). Although the appendix includes the motion to compel a
ruling on relator’s “motion for subpoenas,” it does not include a motion by relator
“to reopen the estate of Bertha Pope.” In the absence of an adequate appendix or
record, this Court cannot evaluate the merits of relator’s petition. See In re Jones,
No. 01-20-00575-CV, 2020 WL 9071579, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
Sept. 10, 2020, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (mem. op.) (in previous
mandamus proceeding involving relator, explaining “[i]n the absence of an
adequate appendix or record, this Court cannot evaluate the merits of relator’s
petition”).
Relator’s petition also is deficient because there is no showing that
respondent refused to rule on relator’s motions. See O’Connor v. First Court of
Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992) (to obtain mandamus relief, relator must
show respondent had legal duty to perform non-discretionary act, that relator made
demand for performance, and that respondent refused); In re Dong Sheng Huang,
491 S.W.3d 383, 385 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding)
2
(“Filing a request for a ruling is insufficient to call the matter to the judge’s
attention because a judge may be unaware of the request. Instead, the party
demanding a ruling must set its request either for submission or a hearing.”).
Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. All pending
motions are dismissed as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Countiss.
3