In Re Daniel Lee Hindman v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-26-00316-CV

__________________

IN RE DANIEL LEE HINDMAN

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

163rd District Court of Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. 260131-C

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Daniel Lee Hindman, a self-represented person, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus asking this Court to compel the trial court to rule on Hindman’s Amended Original Tolling Petition. 1

1 The petition and record contain numerous defects, including Relator’s failure to designate and serve the petition and record on a Real Party in Interest. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.2, 52.7(c). We use Rule 2 to look beyond the deficiencies in the mandamus petition to reach an expeditious result. See id. 2 (“On a party’s motion or on its own initiative an appellate court may—to expedite a decision or for other good cause—suspend a rule’s operation in a particular case and order a different procedure[.]”).

2

The Amended Tolling Petition names no defendants, states no citation shall issue, and recites that no parties have appeared or been joined. The mandamus record includes a reporter’s record of a hearing held on May 1, 2026. The trial court explained to Hindman that a person whose rights would be affected has a due process right to be notified of the proceedings and Hindman would need to serve any party or whose legal rights would be affected before the trial court would rule on the Amended Tolling Petition or on his Motion to Toll Limitations.

We may issue a writ of mandamus to remedy a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court when the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See 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). On this record, Relator has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 19, 2026 Opinion Delivered August 20, 2026

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.