In Re Eloisa Aguirre v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
• Decided: June 25, 2026
• Docket: 09-26-00228-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-26-00228-CV __________________

IN RE ELOISA AGUIRRE

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding County Court at Law No. 1 of Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. 24CCCV0964 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Relator Eloisa Aguirre, acting pro se,

contends (1) the trial court’s proceedings are void ab initio because the plaintiff’s

cause of action relies on a Rule 11 agreement from a case that was dismissed after

the parties entered the agreement; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by

refusing to transfer or dismiss the case when the amount in controversy of Relator’s

counterclaims exceeds the jurisdictional limit of the trial court. We deny the petition.

Relator supports her mandamus petition with a screenshot from a case filed in

Harris County in 2023, a copy of a series of emails relating to settling the Harris

1 County case, and an order dated June 4, 2026, denying Aguirre’s motion to recuse

the judge presiding in the Jefferson County case.

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). “A trial

court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and

unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” Walker, 827

S.W.2d at 839 (internal quotations omitted). A trial court also abuses its discretion

if it fails to correctly analyze or apply the law, because a trial court has no discretion

in determining what the law is or in applying the law to the facts. See Prudential,

148 S.W.3d at 135; Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.

We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits

of mandamus review against the detriments, considering whether extending

mandamus relief will preserve important substantive and procedural rights from

impairment or loss. In re Team Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008) (orig.

proceeding).

We conclude that on this record, the Relator has not shown that she is entitled

to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See

Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

2 PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on June 24, 2026 Opinion Delivered June 25, 2026

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.