In Re Edrick Dunn, Relator v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-24-00326-CV
IN RE EDRICK DUNN, RELATOR
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
October 29, 2024
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.
By this original proceeding, Relator, Edrick Dunn, an inmate proceeding pro se
and in forma pauperis, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Honorable Les Hatch,
Presiding Judge of the 237th District Court of Lubbock County, to enter judgment in his
pending suit against certain defendants. For the reasons expressed herein, we deny
Relator’s request.
BACKGROUND
According to the exhibits accompanying Relator’s petition, on June 4, 2024,
Relator filed an amended petition against the Honorable Jim Bob Darnell, Barbara Sucsy,
and Sara L. Smith alleging “three state employees conspired” to violate his due process
rights while processing and adjudicating his applications for writs of habeas corpus in
2017 and again in 2022. His suit alleges civil conspiracy, disobedience of writ of habeas
corpus, abuse of process, denial of due process, denial of equal protection, denial of
access to courts, illegal restraint, obstruction of justice, breach of fiduciary duty, and
breach of settlement agreement implied in law. He also seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief.
Pursuant to Rule 99 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Relator requested the
Lubbock County District Clerk to issue and deliver citations to the defendants advising
them to file a written answer “on or before 10:00 a.m. on the Monday next after the
expiration of twenty days after the date of service thereof.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 99(a), (b).
According to Relator’s documents, the defendants failed to answer his suit.
He then filed a motion for default or summary judgment on August 5, 2024. 1 A
copy of that motion is not provided. Relator filed subsequent motions for default judgment
on September 30, 2024, and October 14, 2024. Copies of those motions are included
with his petition.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy granted only when a relator can show (1)
the trial court abused its discretion and (2) no adequate appellate remedy exists. In re N.
Cypress Med. Ctr. Operating Co., 559 S.W.3d 128, 130 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding);
In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per
1 Relator included a copy of the trial court’s Civil Case Summary showing a motion for summary
judgment was filed by the district clerk on August 13, 2024.
2
curiam). When seeking mandamus relief, a relator bears the burden of proving these two
requirements. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).
To establish an abuse of discretion, a relator must demonstrate the trial court acted
unreasonably, arbitrarily, or without reference to any guiding rules or principles. See
Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241–42 (Tex. 1985). To
establish no adequate remedy by appeal, a relator must show there is no adequate
remedy at law to address the alleged harm and the act requested is a ministerial act, not
involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist.
Court of Appeals, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).
Furthermore, to establish a ministerial act, a relator must also show (1) a legal duty to
perform, (2) a demand for performance, and (3) a refusal to act. Stoner v. Massey, 586
S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex. 1979).
ANALYSIS
When a motion is properly pending in the trial court, the act of considering and
ruling on the motion is a ministerial act. Eli Lilly and Co. v. Marshall, 829 S.W.2d 157,
158 (Tex. 1992). The trial court has a reasonable time within which to perform its
ministerial duty to rule on a properly pending motion. Creel v. Dist. Atty. For Medina
County, 818 S.W.2d 45, 46 (Tex. 1991); Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268,
269 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). Whether a reasonable period of
time has passed depends on the circumstances of each case. Ex parte Bates, 65 S.W.3d
133, 135 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). No bright line demarcates the
boundaries of a reasonable time period. Id. Factors to consider on what constitutes a
3
reasonable time period include the trial court’s actual knowledge of the motion, its overt
refusal to act, the state of the court’s docket, and the existence of other judicial and
administrative matters which must be addressed first. Id.Relator’s pending motions are recent filings. He has not established the trial
court’s refusal to act on them. We cannot say the short delay in ruling on them constitutes
and unreasonable delay or an abuse of discretion. See In re Jones, No. 07-11-00499-
CV, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 229, at *6 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2012, orig. proceeding)
(finding less than three months without a ruling since the filing of a motion was not an
unreasonable delay). There is also nothing in the record to show the motions were
presented to the trial court. A clerk’s knowledge of a filing is not imputed to the trial court.
In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). Relator
has not brought forth a sufficient record on other factors we must consider in determining
whether the trial court abused its discretion. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837
(Tex. 1992). Most importantly, this Court may not direct a trial court on how to rule on a
motion much less order it to enter judgment in Relator’s favor. In re Watson, No. 07-11-
00157-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 6493, at *4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 15, 2011, orig.
proceeding). Relator has not established he is entitled to mandamus relief.
CONCLUSION
Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
Alex Yarbrough
Justice
4