In Re Chaunsey Digby, Relator v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo)
• Decided: January 30, 2026
• Docket: 07-26-00070-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-26-00069-CV No. 07-26-00070-CV

IN RE CHAUNSEY DIGBY, RELATOR

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

January 30, 2026 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Relator Chaunsey Digby, proceeding pro se, has filed two petitions for mandamus

relief. We believe the applications are intended to request the same relief from the same

underlying cause of action. We will treat the two petitions as a petition and an amended

petition. We deny the petitions.

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy granted only when a relator can show that

(1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion, and (2) no adequate appellate remedy

exists. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding)

(per curiam). When seeking mandamus relief, the relator bears the burden of proving

these two requirements. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). To meet this burden, the relator must provide a record sufficient to establish

her right to mandamus relief. Id. at 837; In re Johnson, No. 06-13-00137-CV, 2014 Tex.

App. LEXIS 52, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Jan. 7, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem.

op.). The record must include “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or

any other document showing the matter complained of.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A).

Additionally, the relator must provide a record that includes a certified or sworn copy of

every document that is material to his claim and that was filed in any underlying

proceeding. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). Digby has not filed any record in these

proceedings and has thus failed to establish her entitlement to relief.

Moreover, Digby has failed to comply with mandatory requirements for relief

identified by Rule 52.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. In one petition Digby

has failed to provide the identity of the parties and counsel, a table of contents, table of

authorities, a statement of facts, argument with appropriate citations to the appendix or

record, certification, and appendix. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. In the other application

Digby failed to include a table of contents, table of authorities, argument with appropriate

citations to authorities and to the appendix or record, certification, and appendix. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3.

A party proceeding pro se is not exempt from complying with the rules of

procedure. Wheeler v. Green, 157 S.W.3d 439, 444 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam); Mansfield

State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978). Relator’s failure to comply

with the requirements of Rule 52 requires denial of the petition. In re Smith, No. 07-19-

00402-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 775 at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 28, 2020, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.). 2 Therefore, we deny Digby’s petitions for writ of mandamus.

Lawrence M. Doss Justice