in Re L.T. Runels, Jr., Relator ( 2022 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-22-00037-CV
IN RE L.T. RUNELS JR., RELATOR
OPINION ON ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
February 15, 2022
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
Pending before the Court is the pro se petition for writ of mandamus and a motion
to stay the trial court proceedings, both having been filed pro se by L.T. Runels Jr
(“relator”). He seeks to compel the trial court to consider, or reconsider, his motion for
summary judgment. Additionally, he asks us to consider making “modifications” to the
trial court’s decision granting summary judgment against relator or to send the case back
for a show-cause hearing as to why “the trial court declared relator’s motion for summary
judgment moot.” For the reasons discussed below, we deny the petition for writ of
mandamus and the motion to stay.
First, a relator is obligated to accompany his petition with documents “showing the
matter complained of.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A). Here, the underlying complaint is
that the trial court granted two motions for summary judgment against relator while finding
his own “moot.” Said motions allegedly were filed by opposing parties. Missing from the
documents attached to relator’s petition are the motions for summary judgment underlying
his complaint. They would be part of the documents showing the “matter complained of.”
Second, relator attached a letter from the trial court evincing that the two motions
it granted “dispose[] of all issues in [the] cause.” Disposing of those two motions as it did
apparently rendered relator’s motion “moot,” in the court’s estimation. More importantly,
the court denied “all other pending motions.” Finally, those whose motions for summary
judgment received favorable consideration were directed to prepare “an appropriate
judgment.” Though no final judgment is before us, the letter reveals the trial court’s intent
to enter a final judgment in the cause. This is of import because an appeal from a final
judgment is an adequate legal remedy for one complaining about the denial of a motion
for summary judgment. In re Light, No. 07-21-00162-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 7274, at
*5 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 31, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (noting that the
availability of an appeal from a final decision is an adequate legal remedy pretermitting
mandamus relief). Relator’s conclusory suggestion that he lacks funds to pursue such
an avenue of relief is inconsequential; no effort was made to illustrate that procedural
relief afforded an indigent (assuming, of course, that he is indigent) would be unavailable
to him.
The petition for writ of mandamus and motion to stay are denied.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
2