Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Santiago Stable, an incarcerated pro se litigant in an underlying criminal case (The State of Texas v. Santiago Stable, No. 1118645, 180th District Court of Harris County), filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Court of Appeals. He alleged that the trial court had failed to rule on two pro se motions: a “petition for nunc pro tunc” filed on October 30, 2025, and an “order on nunc pro tunc” filed on December 8, 2025. Stable sought mandamus relief to compel the trial court to rule on these motions.
Nunc pro tunc relief allows a court to retroactively correct or enter orders to reflect what the court intended at an earlier time. Stable argued that the trial court’s failure to act on his motions constituted a mandamus-appropriate violation of his rights.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals denied Stable’s mandamus petition. The court found that Stable had failed to establish entitlement to mandamus relief in two critical respects: First, he did not provide a record of the pro se motions he claimed the trial court had failed to rule upon. Second, he did not establish that such motions were actually filed with the trial court or brought to the trial court’s attention. The only documentation Stable provided was a postcard from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals acknowledging receipt of his motion for leave to file a mandamus application.
The court applied the established standard from In re Gomez, 602 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020), which requires that a mandamus petitioner establish both the facts underlying the claim and that the trial court failed to act. Without adequate documentation and proof that the underlying motions existed and were presented to the trial court, Stable could not meet this burden.
The court also noted that it lacked writ power over the Court of Criminal Appeals, should Stable have been seeking mandamus relief against that court. Any pending motions were dismissed as moot.
Key Takeaways
- Pro se litigants must comply with procedural requirements when seeking appellate relief, including providing an adequate record.
- A mandamus petitioner must demonstrate that the challenged motions were actually filed with and brought to the trial court’s attention.
- Without proper documentation of underlying motions, a court of appeals cannot grant mandamus relief requiring a trial court to rule on them.
- Courts apply the same evidentiary standards to pro se and represented litigants in mandamus proceedings.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that procedural compliance is not waived for pro se litigants seeking appellate relief. While courts recognize the challenges faced by incarcerated pro se litigants, they cannot grant mandamus relief based on unsupported allegations. Litigants must affirmatively demonstrate through documentation that motions were filed and presented to the trial court before appealing the trial court’s failure to rule.
The ruling also clarifies jurisdictional limits: appellate courts can only grant mandamus relief against courts over which they have writ authority. Here, the court noted its inability to issue a writ against the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, emphasizing that litigants must petition the correct forum for relief.