Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
William Travis Hawk Jr. and Rebecca Mae Hawk, proceeding without counsel, petitioned for a writ of mandamus against two respondents. They alleged abuses of discretion based on the failure to rule before an in-person hearing on their motion for ADA accommodations and an objection.
The Hawks also challenged the denial of their statement of inability to pay costs, asserting that it was denied without a hearing, findings, or notice of a right to challenge the decision. In an emergency motion, they asked the court of appeals to stay hearings in the underlying case scheduled for November 17 and December 1, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied both the mandamus petition and the emergency motion for temporary relief. After examining the petition, the limited record, and the applicable law, the court concluded generally that the Hawks had not carried their burden to obtain mandamus relief.
The court explained that mandamus requires a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy. It also stated that mandamus may compel a trial court to rule on a properly filed motion when the relator establishes a duty to rule, a request for a ruling, and a failure or refusal to rule within a reasonable time. The opinion did not identify a particular element as the dispositive deficiency in the Hawks’ petition.
Key Takeaways
- Mandamus is an extraordinary, discretionary remedy requiring both a clear abuse of discretion and the absence of an adequate remedy by appeal.
- To compel a ruling on a pending motion, a relator generally must show that the trial court had a duty to rule, was asked to rule, and failed or refused to act within a reasonable time.
- The court denied the requested stay and mandamus relief based on its general conclusion that the relators did not meet their burden.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the demanding burden borne by parties seeking extraordinary appellate intervention in ongoing trial-court proceedings. Filing a motion with the clerk alone does not establish that the trial court knew of the motion or was asked to rule on it.
It also illustrates that emergency requests to halt scheduled proceedings do not dispense with the ordinary requirements for mandamus relief.