In Re Edrick Dunn, Relator v. the State of Texas

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-24-00372-CV

IN RE EDRICK DUNN, RELATOR

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

December 19, 2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.

Relator, Edrick Dunn, an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, seeks

a writ of mandamus to compel the Honorable Les Hatch, Presiding Judge of the 237th

District Court of Lubbock County, to rule on three motions for default or summary

judgment against defendants in a civil suit whom he alleges have failed to timely file an

answer to his original petition. For the reasons expressed herein, we deny mandamus

relief.

BACKGROUND

Relator seeks mandamus relief for a second time. He previously sought and was

denied the requested relief in October 2024. See In re Dunn, No. 07-24-00326-CV, 2024

Tex. App. LEXIS 7695 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Oct. 29, 2024, orig. proceeding). As noted in this Court’s previous opinion, Relator filed motions on August 5, 2024, September 30, 2024,

and October 14, 2024.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy granted only when a relator can show (1)

the trial court abused its discretion and (2) no adequate appellate remedy exists. In re N.

Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co., 559 S.W.3d 128, 130 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding);

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, a relator bears the burden of proving these two

requirements. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

To establish an abuse of discretion, a relator must demonstrate the trial court acted

unreasonably, arbitrarily, or without reference to any guiding rules or principles. See

Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241–42 (Tex. 1985). To

establish no adequate remedy by appeal, a relator must show there is no adequate

remedy at law to address the alleged harm and the act requested is a ministerial act, not

involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist.

Court of Appeals, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).

Furthermore, to establish a ministerial act, a relator must also show (1) a legal duty to

perform, (2) a demand for performance, and (3) a refusal to act. Stoner v. Massey, 586

S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex. 1979).

ANALYSIS

Relator contends the trial court has refused to act on his motions thereby abusing

its discretion. He asserts he has no adequate remedy at law. While he acknowledges

2 there is no bright line that demarcates a reasonable time in which to rule on a pending

motion, he argues that under Rule 166a(c) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the

“judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith.” Relator takes that phrase out of context.

He also relies on Rule 239 providing for default judgment when a defendant fails to file

an answer. That rule, however, does not instruct the trial court on when to rule on a

motion for default judgment.

Other than a conclusory statement by Relator, his documents do not show a

refusal to act by the trial court. Finally, he has not established the state of the court’s

docket and the existence of other judicial and administrative matters which a trial court

must address first. Id. Before being granted mandamus relief, a relator must provide a

record showing entitlement to such relief. Relator has not satisfied his obligation to do

so.

CONCLUSION

Relator’s petition for mandamus relief is denied.

Alex Yarbrough Justice