In Re Maria Ramirez Alvarado v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)
• Decided: January 23, 2026
• Docket: 08-26-00061-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS ————————————

No. 08-26-00061-CV ————————————

In re Maria Ramirez Alvarado

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN MANDAMUS

M E MO RA N D UM O PI NI O N Relator, Maria Ramirez Alvarado, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this

Court to “[i]ssue a writ of mandamus directing the Justice Court and County Court at Law No. Six

to vacate” an “Order of Possession” allegedly issued by the justice court and an “Order of Writ of

Possession” allegedly issued by the county court. Alvarado also requests, in both her petition for

writ of mandamus and a separately filed “Emergency Motion for Temporary Relief and Stay,” that

we issue an order staying enforcement of both court’s orders. We dismiss the petition for lack of

jurisdiction to the extent Alvarado seeks mandamus relief against the justice court, we deny the petition regarding Alvarado’s request for mandamus relief against the county court, and we dismiss

Alvarado’s request for emergency relief as moot.

As an initial matter, an appellate court may issue a writ of mandamus “against a judge of a

district, statutory county, statutory probate county, or county court in the court of appeals district.”

Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b). An appellate court may also issue a writ of mandamus if it is

“necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.” Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a); In re

Anguiano, No. 13-23-00490-CV, 2023 WL 7932474, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg

Nov. 16, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Alvarado’s petition requests that this Court issue a

writ of mandamus against a justice court—a court over which we lack jurisdiction—and makes no

showing that the issuance of a writ of mandamus against the justice court is necessary to enforce

our jurisdiction. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a)–(c); see In re Castro, No. 02-23-00489-CV,

2024 WL 23627, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 2, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)

(dismissing petition for writ of mandamus for want of jurisdiction over a justice of the peace);

Anguiano, 2023 WL 7932474, at *1 (dismissing petition seeking issuance of writ of mandamus

against a justice of the peace for want of jurisdiction when the relator failed to show such a writ

was necessary to enforce the court’s jurisdiction). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over

Alvarado’s petition to the extent Alvarado seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus against the

justice court.

In addition, under the rules of appellate procedure, “[t]he person filing [a mandamus]

petition must certify that he or she has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual

statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record.”

Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j). A relator must also attach “a certified or sworn copy of any order

complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of,” and “a certified or

2 sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief.” Tex. R. App. P.

52.3(k)(1)(B), 52.7(a)(1); see Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (“As the parties

seeking relief, the Walkers had the burden of providing this Court with a sufficient record to

establish their right to mandamus relief.”). Finally, a petition must include an argument section

that contains “appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.” Tex. R. App. P.

52.3(h).

Alvarado’s petition contains a short section entitled “Verification,” stating that, “I, Maria

Ramirez Alvarado, verify that the factual statements contained in this Petition are true and correct.”

The petition also includes an “Affidavit of Relator, Maria Ramirez Alvarado,” which reiterates

each of the factual assertions included in the petition’s “Statement of Facts.” These statements are

not signed and are not statements of the person who filed the petition—Alvarado’s counsel.

Further, the “Affidavit” is not sworn, and neither the “Verification” nor the “Affidavit” certify that

the factual statements made in the petition are supported by evidence in the record or appendix.

As a result, the petition lacks the certification required by Rule 52.3(j). Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j); see

In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding) (holding that

petition did not meet the requirements of Rule 52.3(j) because, although the relators’ attorney

stated the factual statements in the petition were true and correct, this statement did not meet the

requirements of the rule, and he failed to provide the required certification—that the factual

statements were supported by competent evidence in the record or appendix).

Moreover, the mandamus record does not contain certified or sworn copies of any

documents showing the matter complained of and all documents that are material to Alvarado’s

claim for relief as required by Rule 52.3(k)(1)(B) and Rule 52.7(a)(1). See Tex. R. App. P.

52.3(k)(1)(B), 52.7(a)(1). Similarly, although the petition contains an argument section, the

3 argument lacks any citations to authorities or to the appendix or record as required by Rule 52.3(h).

See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(h).

After fully considering the petition and mandamus record before us, we conclude that

Alvarado has not established an entitlement to mandamus relief. See In re XPO Logistics Freight,

Inc., No. 08-25-00184-CV, 2025 WL 2005016, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso July 17, 2025, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Weaver, No. 08-25-00162-CV, 2025 WL 1774127, at *1–2

(Tex. App.—El Paso June 26, 2025, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Martinez, No. 08-24-

00023-CV, 2024 WL 1723958, at *2 (Tex. App.—El Paso April 22, 2024, orig. proceeding)

(mem. op.); In re Hernandez, No. 08-23-00160-CV, 2023 WL 4146281, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso

June 23, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Vasquez, No. 08-12-00267-CV, 2012 WL

4714492, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Oct. 3, 2012, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). We dismiss the

petition for want of jurisdiction, in part, as to Alvarado’s request for mandamus relief against the

justice court, and we deny the petition, in part, as to Alvarado’s request for relief against the county

court. We dismiss the motion for emergency relief as moot.

MARIA SALAS MENDOZA, Chief Justice

January 23, 2026

Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.