In Re Janet McGinn v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 24, 2025
• Docket: 06-25-00064-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-25-00064-CV

IN RE JANET MCGINN

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Janet McGinn, proceeding pro se, petitions for mandamus relief against the trial

court. McGinn contends that, on June 27, 2025, and without her agreement, the trial court

permitted her counsel to withdraw. McGinn sought a continuance of an upcoming hearing,

which was denied. Hearing is scheduled for July 25, 2025. On July 22, 2025, McGinn

petitioned this Court for mandamus relief in the same underlying matter, and on July 24, 2025,

this Court issued its memorandum opinion in cause number 06-25-00062-CV, in which

McGinn’s petition was denied for failure to comply with numerous rules of Texas appellate

procedure.

McGinn again petitions this Court to stop the trial court from proceeding with a hearing

scheduled for tomorrow, July 25, 2025. Because McGinn failed to comply with the Texas Rules

of Appellate Procedure, we deny the mandamus petition.1

Rule 52.7(a)(1) states that a “[r]elator must file with the petition . . . a certified or sworn

copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any

underlying proceeding.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). Rule 52.3(k)(1)(B) states, “The appendix

. . . must contain . . . 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)(B). Here, the

mandamus record and appendices are not accompanied by an affidavit and, while some

documents have been provided, a record of the proceedings related to the complained-of denial

of McGinn’s motion for continuance is absent from the record. Moreover, there is no certified or

1 In conjunction with the petition for a writ of mandamus, McGinn filed an emergency motion for a stay of the trial court’s proceedings. Because we deny the petition, that motion is also denied. 2 sworn copy of the order denying McGinn’s motion for continuance. As a result, documents

material to McGinn’s petition are neither certified nor sworn.

“‘Because the record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by the parties,’ we must

‘strictly enforce[] the authentication requirements of rule 52 to ensure the integrity of the

mandamus record.’” In re Landstar Ranger, Inc., No. 06-21-00068-CV, 2021 WL 3411534, at

*1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Aug. 4, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (alteration in original)

(quoting In re Long, 607 S.W.3d 443, 445 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2020, orig. proceeding)). “It

is the relator’s burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to establish the right to

mandamus relief.” Id. (quoting In re Long, 607 S.W.3d at 446) (citing TEX. R. APP. P.

52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1)). Here, McGinn has failed to provide us with a sufficient record

because several of the documents attached to the petition do not comply with Rules

52.3(k)(1)(B) or 52.7(a)(1).

As a result, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus.

Charles van Cleef Justice

Date Submitted: July 24, 2025 Date Decided: July 24, 2025