In Re Jimie Owsley v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 12, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00390-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00390-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE JIMIE OWSLEY

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina1

Relator Jimie Owsley, proceeding pro se, filed an amended petition for writ of

mandamus asserting that the trial court: (1) abused its discretion by issuing temporary

orders changing the exclusive right to designate the minor child’s residence without a

pleading or proof of present danger; (2) disregarded the provisions of the Texas Family

Code by modifying a final order without evidence or findings of a material and substantial

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). change in circumstances; and (3) violated the Texas Family Code by changing a

conservatorship determination over relator’s timely jury demand. See TEX. FAM. CODE

ANN. §§ 105.002, 156.006(b), 156.101.

“Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy available only on a showing that

(1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion and (2) the party seeking relief lacks an

adequate remedy on appeal.” In re Ill. Nat’l Ins., 685 S.W.3d 826, 834 (Tex. 2024) (orig.

proceeding); see In re Liberty Cnty. Mut. Ins., 679 S.W.3d 170, 174 (Tex. 2023) (orig.

proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex.

2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig.

proceeding). “The relator bears the burden of proving these two requirements.” In re

H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam);

Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. Because a trial court's temporary orders are not appealable,

mandamus is an appropriate vehicle for review. See In re Derzapf, 219 S.W.3d 327, 334–

35 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re K.B., 683 S.W.3d 850, 855 (Tex.

App.—Austin 2024, orig. proceeding); In re D.D., 661 S.W.3d 608, 617 (Tex. App.—El

Paso 2023, orig. proceeding); In re Walser, 648 S.W.3d 442, 445 (Tex. App.—San

Antonio 2021, orig. proceeding).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the amended petition for writ of

mandamus, the responses filed by real parties in interest Brian Leon Owsley and amicus

attorney Helen O. Delgadillo, relator’s reply, the limited record provided, and the

applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met her burden to obtain mandamus

relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s emergency motion seeking to stay the temporary

2 orders at issue, which we had previously ordered to be carried with the case, and we

deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

JAIME TIJERINA Chief Justice

Delivered and filed on the 12th day of August, 2025.