in Re Mark A. Cantu ( 2020 )

NUMBER 13-20-00443-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE MARK A. CANTU
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa1
Relator Mark A. Cantu, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus
seeking to compel the trial court to hold a hearing and rule on “Plaintiff’s Second Amended
Motion to Dismiss a/k/a Plea to the Jurisdiction.” Relator has also filed an emergency
motion seeking to stay depositions which are scheduled for November 2, 3, and 4. We
deny both the petition for writ of mandamus and motion for emergency relief without
prejudice.
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in
any other case,” but when “denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do
so.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
To obtain relief by writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that the trial court
committed a clear abuse of discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal.
In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In
re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding);
Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The relator
bears the burden to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. See
Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; see In re Carrington, 438 S.W.3d 867, 868 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo 2014, orig. proceeding); In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.—Amarillo
2003, orig. proceeding). This burden requires that relator provide the reviewing court with
a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7;
Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 837; In re Carrington, 438 S.W.3d at 869; In re Davidson, 153
S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding).
Because relator failed to provide us with a record to support his petition for writ of
mandamus and motion for emergency relief, this Court concludes that he has not met his
burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and motion
for emergency relief without prejudice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a), 52.10(b).
LETICIA HINOJOSA
Justice
Delivered and filed the
30th day of October, 2020.
2