in Re Taneisha Pauliono ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                 NUMBER 13-21-00302-CV
    COURT OF APPEALS
    THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
    CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
    IN RE TANEISHA PAULIONO
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina
    Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina1
    Pro se relator Taneisha Pauliono filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above-
    referenced cause through which she generally asserts that the trial court 2 abused its
    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. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
    47.1 (“The court of appeals must hand down a written opinion that is as brief as practicable but that
    addresses every issue raised and necessary to final disposition of the appeal.”); id. R. 47.4 (explaining the
    differences between opinions and memorandum opinions).
    2 This original proceeding arises from trial court cause number 2021-CCL-00621 in the County
    Court at Law No. 2 of Cameron County, Texas, and the respondent is the Honorable Laura Betancourt.
    See id. 52.2.
    discretion by refusing to sign a final judgment and instead transferring the case to a
    different court. Relator requests that we direct the trial court to abate all proceedings in
    Court at Law No. 4 of Cameron County, Texas; sign the judgment “rendered” on August
    17, 2021 by the judge of the County Court at Law No. 2 of Cameron County, Texas; and
    “stay this litigation pending final resolution, including [the] newly re-filed original complaint
    with Cause No. 2021-DCL-05313 in the Cameron County District Court . . . .”
    Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.
    Co., 
    622 S.W.3d 870
    , 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 
    544 S.W.3d 836
    ,
    840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 
    148 S.W.3d 124
    , 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial
    court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re
    USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 
    624 S.W.3d 782
    , 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re
    Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 
    827 S.W.2d 833
    ,
    839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “The relator bears the burden of proving these two
    requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 
    492 S.W.3d 300
    , 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig.
    proceeding) (per curiam); Walker v. Packer, 
    827 S.W.2d 833
    , 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig.
    proceeding). 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 (governing the form and contents for a petition). The relator must also file an
    appendix and record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See 
    id.
     R. 52.3(k)
    2
    (specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required
    contents for the record).
    The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
    and the foregoing standard of review, is of the opinion that relator has not met her burden
    to obtain relief. Relator has failed to (1) include a statement of facts supported by citations
    to competent evidence included in the appendix or record, (2) provide a clear and concise
    argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the
    appendix or record, and (3) file an appendix and record sufficient to support the claim for
    relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3; 
    id.
     R. 52.3(k). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ
    of mandamus and all relief sought therein.
    JAIME TIJERINA
    Justice
    Delivered and filed on the
    29th day of September, 2021.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-21-00302-CV

Filed Date: 9/29/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/4/2021