In Re Ryen Michelle Staggers v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
• Decided: April 9, 2026
• Docket: 01-26-00311-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued April 9, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-26-00311-CV ——————————— IN RE RYEN MICHELLE STAGGERS, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Ryen Michelle Staggers, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ

of mandamus challenging a “[c]ontested [t]emporary [o]rder signed by the [trial

court] on March 27, 2026.”1 Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus asserted that

the trial court abused its discretion by signing the March 27, 2026 order. Relator

1 The underlying case is In the Interest of M.K.S.-C, a Child, Cause No. 2025-77173, in the 257th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Sandra Peake presiding. therefore requested that this Court “[i]ssue an emergency order under [Texas Rule

of Appellate Procedure] 52.10 staying the enforcement of the March 27, 2026[]

[o]rder . . . , stay all underlying proceedings in the [t]rial [c]ourt pending the

resolution” of the petition, and to further grant her petition for writ of mandamus and

direct the trial court to vacate the March 27, 2026 order “as void due to extrinsic

fraud and the violation of [r]elator’s due process rights.”

Relator previously filed an original proceeding in this Court, assigned

appellate case number 01-26-00300-CV, seeking similar relief. As in her previous

original proceeding, relator has failed to file a mandamus record or appendix

including an order signed by the trial court, dated March 27, 2026 or otherwise. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(l)(1)(B) (requiring relator to provide an appendix to petition for

writ of mandamus including “a certified or sworn copy of the relevant trial court

order”), 52.7(a); see also In re State Farm Lloyds, No. 05-25-01224-CV, 2025 WL

2723146, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 24, 2025, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)

(denying mandamus relief “[b]ecause the mandamus record d[id] not include a copy

of the trial court’s order”). That leaves this Court unable to study the order

challenged by relator to consider the merits of her petition. Accordingly, we

conclude that relator has failed to establish she is entitled to mandamus relief, and

therefore, the Court denies relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We dismiss any

pending motions as moot.

2 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Gunn, Caughey, and Morgan.