In Re Jimie Dianne Owsley v. the State of Texas
CourtTexas Court of Appeals, 13th District
Date FiledSeptember 23, 2026
Docket13-26-00660-CV
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
NUMBER 13-26-00660-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG
IN RE JIMIE DIANNE OWSLEY
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Silva, Peña, and West
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator Jimie Dianne Owsley has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus
through which she asserts, inter alia, that the trial court abused its discretion by:
(1) authorizing a deposition after the discovery deadline and shortly before trial; and
(2) treating the deposition “as supplying or conclusively establishing a statutory predicate
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
for permanent modification under Texas Family Code § 156.101.” See TEX. FAM. CODE
§ 156.101 (governing the grounds for modification of an order establishing
conservatorship or possession and access to minor children). 2 Relator has also filed an
emergency motion for temporary relief regarding the trial of the underlying case which is
set to commence on September 28, 2026. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10. Specifically, relator
seeks to prevent the admission of certain evidence at trial and the use of specific jury
instructions.
“Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that is available in limited circumstances
to correct clear errors in exceptional cases.” In re Rogers, 728 S.W.3d 717, 719 (Tex.
2026) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (citation modified); see In re Prudential Ins. Co. of
Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). To obtain a writ of mandamus,
the relator must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and the relator lacks
an adequate remedy by appeal. In re Lapuerta, 732 S.W.3d 548, 555 (Tex. 2026) (orig.
proceeding). The relator bears the burden to establish the right to relief in an original
proceeding. In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding)
(per curiam); see Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding);
see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3, 52.7; see also Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se
applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he
2 This original proceeding arises from trial court cause number 2014-FAM-1876-G in the 319th
District Court of Nueces County, Texas. This Court has previously addressed other matters arising from
this same trial court cause number. See, e.g., In re Owsley, No. 13-26-00022-CV, 2026 WL 113442, at *1
(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jan. 14, 2026, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.); Owsley v.
Owsley, No. 13-18-00636-CV, 2022 WL 16842689, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Nov. 10,
2022, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re E.O., No. 13-18-00637-CV, 2021 WL 4995568, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi–Edinburg Oct. 28, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.); Owsley v. Owsley, No. 13-17-00025-CV, 2017 WL
5953097, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Nov. 30, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).
2
seeks.”). “A trial court has no discretion to determine what the law is, even when the law
is unsettled, and abuses its discretion when its rulings are arbitrary, unreasonable, or
made without reference to guiding legal principles.” In re State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 712
S.W.3d 53, 59 (Tex. 2025) (orig. proceeding). We conduct a “benefits-and-detriments
analysis” to determine if the relator possesses an adequate remedy at law. In re Auburn
Creek Ltd. P’ship, 655 S.W.3d 837, 843 (Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,
the record provided, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met her
burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and the
emergency motion for temporary relief.
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed on the
23rd day of September, 2026.
3