In Re Cedric M. Scott, PhD v. the State of Texas

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided December 9, 2025·No. 15-25-00227-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED

15-25-00227-CV

FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/9/2025 9:33 PM

CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK

FILED IN

IN THE FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS 15th COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

AT AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/9/2025 9:33:51 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

Clerk

Case No. 15-25-00227 - CV (Transferred from the Third Court of Appeals)

IN RE CEDRIC M. SCOTT, PhD Relator, Pro Se

v.

GENERAL LAND OFFICE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS Real Party of Interest

Original Proceeding from the 250th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-25-000006

RELATOR’S MOTION TO EXPEDITE CONSIDERATION OF PENDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

TO THE HONORABLE FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS:

Relator, Cedric M. Scott, PhD1, respectfully moves the Court to expedite

consideration of her Petition for Writ of Mandamus, which the Clerk accepted for

filing on December 8, 2025. The mandamus presents substantial constitutional,

procedural, and administrative defects that have halted the judicial process for

nearly a year. The absence of a successor judge since November 21, 2025, the

presence of void orders entered by a constitutionally disqualified trial judge, the

missing Court reporter’s record, and the systemic prejudice to Relator warrant

accelerated review.

Relator continues to suffer irreparable harm—including blacklisting, loss of

comparable employment since December 3, 2024, ongoing procedural paralysis,

and the inability to advance her claims due to the trial court’s inability to act.

Expedited consideration is necessary to prevent further harm and restore lawful

judicial process.

I. PROCEDURAL DEFECTS REQUIRING MANDAMUS INTERVENTION

A. Constitutional Disqualification Rendered All Orders Void

Judge Cory R. Liu previously represented GLO in HUD-related matters.

1 Plaintiff’s first name is pronounced See-Drick and not Said-Drick. Gender is female, and pronouns are she, her, and hers.

Under Tex. Const. art. V, § 11, this created constitutional disqualification. Orders

issued by a disqualified judge are void ab initio. Buckholts I.S.D. v. Glaser, 632

S.W.2d 146, 148–49 (Tex. 1982).

B. No Successor Judge Has Been Appointed

Judge Liu recused on November 21, 2025. As of today, no successor judge

has been assigned. Void orders remain uncorrected. Time-sensitive filings cannot

be ruled on. The trial court is unable to act. This constitutes the type of “stalled

judicial machinery” mandamus is designed to correct. In re Patel, 619 S.W.3d 651,

654 (Tex. 2021).

C. GLO Continues to Benefit From Procedural Paralysis

GLO has not answered the live petition, has not disputed the findings of its

own Internal Audit Report No. 25-01, and continues to benefit from the procedural

standstill created by the constitutional disqualification and lack of a successor

judge. Relator, by contrast, remains unable to obtain judicial review of void orders

or advance her claims.

This breakdown functions as a litigation shield for GLO. The agency avoids

responding to filings, avoids addressing corroborated compliance failures, and

avoids scrutiny of its inconsistent representations. With no judge in place, these

issues cannot be addressed. This one-sided paralysis is precisely the type of

structural defect a mandamus exists to remedy.

II. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE MISSING 10/29/2025 TRANSCRIPT

Relator filed a Motion to Preserve the Record before filing her mandamus.

The transcript, due November 21, 2025, has not been filed. It contains:

1. GLO’s counsel inferring the non-existence of the internal audit report,

2. Statements bearing on Relator’s credibility, and

3. The context surrounding void orders entered by a disqualified judge.

Despite Relator’s motion for preservation of the hearing transcription, its

absence further prejudices Relator and heightens the need for expedited relief.

III. INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT 25-01 CORROBORATES RELATOR’S PROTECTED DISCLOSURES

GLO’s Internal Audit Report No. 25-01, completed in sometime in

September 2025 and transmitted to the Office of the Governor, the Legislative

Budget Board, the State Auditor’s Office, and not shared to Relator documents

systemic deficiencies, including:

• Inadequate training

• Documentation failures

• Monitoring noncompliance

• Procurement irregularities

• Weak internal controls

• Undefined roles and responsibilities

The above findings mirror the deficiencies Relator documented and shared

with Grant Management and Internal Audit Director prior to her termination

summarized in TAB J and TAB K referenced in her pending mandamus. Those

materials were also submitted to the trial court with Relator’s Second Amended

Petition, which GLO has refused to answer the petition.

IV. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS DEMONSTRATING THE NEED FOR EXPEDITED REVIEW

A. GLO’s Litigation Position Conflicts With Mandatory Audit Standards and Its Own QAIP Framework

Relator provides this additional context to demonstrate why expedited

review is necessary and why GLO’s litigation posture is inconsistent with its own

internal-audit obligations.

1. Audit Standards (AS) 1311 Requires Internal Self-Assessments and Ongoing Monitoring

The FY2023 Internal Audit Quality Assurance and Improvement Program

(QAIP) Report, addressed to Commissioner Dawn Buckingham on October 9,

2023, confirms that GLO is required to conduct ongoing internal-audit monitoring

and periodic self-assessments. Exhibit 1- FY2023 QAIP Report at pages 1–4, where

the report describes:

a. Continuous monitoring of internal audit activities;

b. Periodic internal self-assessments;

c. Evaluation of conformance with internal-audit standards;

d. Documentation of internal processes and audit performance; and

e. Communication of periodic assessment results to GLO leadership.

Critically, page 4 of the QAIP Report expressly restates the requirements of the

Institute of Internal Audit Attribute Standard 1311, confirming that internal

assessments “must include ongoing monitoring of the performance of the internal

audit activity” and “periodic self-assessment or assessments by other persons

within the organization with sufficient knowledge of internal audit practices.”

2. GLO’s QAIP Reports Acknowledge and Operationalize AS 1311 Requirements

Across pages 1–6, the FY2023 and FY2022 QAIP Reports demonstrates that GLO:

a. Performs internal self-assessments annually;

b. Conducts ongoing monitoring through weekly meetings with audit teams;

c. Tracks performance, documentation, audit plans, and fieldwork;

d. Uses formal internal-audit policies and procedures; and

e. Performs post-audit analyses and status reporting.

These processes mirror the specific internal-audit functions that Relator

repeatedly reported as deficient within CDR Grant Management—specifically

documentation, oversight, internal controls, and monitoring. Exhibit 1- FY2023

and Exhibit 2 - QAIP Reports

3. GLO’s Interrogatory Response Contradicts These Published Requirements

In sworn discovery responses, GLO claimed that CDR–Grant Management

personnel were “not required” to conduct internal self-assessments. This is

contradictory with:

• AS 1311’s explicit requirement for periodic self-assessments;

• GLO’s own published QAIP processes confirming the same; and

• The responsibilities assigned to CDR oversight personnel, including senior

management, regional managers, and senior grant managers.

The contradiction is not minor. It demonstrates that GLO’s litigation

narrative—framing deficiencies as performance issues or managerial

disagreement—is incompatible with:

• External audit standards (AS 1311),

• Internal agency publications (FY2023 QAIP Report), and

• GLO’s Internal Audit Report No. 25-01’s conclusion that the deficiencies

were systemic, and not performance issues.

4. These Contradictions Reinforce Why Expedited Review Is Necessary

The inconsistencies between GLO’s sworn assertions and its own QAIP

framework:

• Confirm Relator’s disclosures were accurate and grounded in established

audit expectations;

• Demonstrate that deficiencies were structural and agency-wide, not

individual;

• Show that GLO’s litigation posture is at odds with its documented practices;

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In Re Cedric M. Scott, PhD v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

In Re Cedric M. Scott, PhD v. the State of Texas (In Re Cedric M. Scott, PhD v. the State of Texas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Buckholts Independent School District v. Glaser
632 S.W.2d 146 (Texas Supreme Court, 1982)