In Re Timothy Clark v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 15, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00397-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00397-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE TIMOTHY CLARK

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Cron Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña1

By petition for writ of mandamus, relator Timothy Clark asserts that the trial court

erred by dissolving a temporary restraining order and entering temporary orders without

considering relevant evidence.

“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

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). 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 petition for writ of mandamus,

the record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to

obtain mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

L. ARON PEÑA JR. Justice

Delivered and filed on the 15th day of August, 2025.