in Re Reginald Nelson ( 2019 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-18-00982-CV
IN RE Reginald NELSON
Original Mandamus Proceeding 1
PER CURIAM
Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: January 9, 2019
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED
Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining the trial court has refused to rule
on his “Conversion/Civil Theft” claim and issue a default judgment against the defendants.
Because relator has not provided this court with a sufficient record, we deny the petition for writ
of mandamus.
DISCUSSION
A trial court clearly abuses its discretion when it fails to rule within a reasonable time on a
properly-presented motion. Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—San
Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). However, a 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)(1) (requiring
1
This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2018CV06621, styled Reginald Nelson v. Rita Edwards, et al., pending in
the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable David J. Rodriguez presiding.
04-18-00982-CV
relator to file “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”). In a case such as this one, a relator
has the burden to provide the court of appeals with a record showing the motion at issue was
properly filed, the trial court was made aware of the motion, and the motion has not been ruled on
by the trial court for an unreasonable period of time. See In re Mendoza, 131 S.W.3d 167, 167-68
(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding).
Here, relator has not provided this court with a copy of any motion, a copy of the trial
court’s docket, or any proof indicating the trial court is aware of his claims. Because relator did
not provide this court with a sufficient record, relator has not shown himself entitled to mandamus
relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
PER CURIAM
-2-