In re Ashby — Mandamus denied because relators did not show unreasonable delay or present their motions to the trial court

Unreported / Non-Citable

Background

Agelon Ramon Ashby and Lindzie Justina Ashby, proceeding without counsel, sought mandamus relief in an original proceeding arising from Hays County. They complained that the trial court had not ruled on several motions filed on May 28, June 23, June 25, and July 12, 2026.

The Ashbys argued that they had called the motions to the trial court’s attention by filing additional motions with the district clerk that specifically requested rulings. The appellate record, however, did not show that the clerk informed the trial court about the motions or that the trial court otherwise learned of them.

The Court’s Holding

The Third Court of Appeals denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. A relator seeking to compel a ruling must establish that a properly filed motion was presented to the trial court with a request for a ruling and that the court refused to rule or failed to rule within a reasonable time.

The Ashbys satisfied neither requirement. The court concluded that the periods for which the motions had been pending were not shown to be unreasonable under the circumstances. It also held that filing motions or requests for rulings with the district clerk, without proof that they reached the trial judge’s attention, did not establish that the trial court had been asked to rule. The record therefore did not demonstrate an abuse of discretion.

Key Takeaways

• Mandamus relief for a trial court’s failure to rule requires proof that the motion was brought specifically to the trial court’s attention.
• Filing a motion or a request for a ruling with the district clerk does not, by itself, prove that the judge knew about it.
• A relator must also show that the motion remained pending for an unreasonable time in light of the case’s particular circumstances.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores that the appellate record must document more than a motion’s filing date. A party seeking mandamus should preserve evidence that the judge received or otherwise became aware of a request for a ruling.

It also confirms that whether delay is unreasonable depends on the circumstances; a period of several months ordinarily will not alone establish the clear abuse of discretion required for mandamus relief.