Full Opinion

NUMBER 13-26-00632-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE AMBER NICOLE PEREZ ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Cron and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca1 By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, relator Amber Nicole Perez seeks to: (1) compel the Honorable Julie Bauknight to vacate a void order, (2) prohibit Judge Bauknight from further presiding over the underlying case, and (3) determine that all 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). motions should be heard and decided by “a properly assigned, competent, and impartial judicial officer.”2 “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). Alternatively, when “a trial court issues an order ‘beyond its jurisdiction,’ mandamus relief is appropriate because such an order is void ab initio.” In re Panchakarla, 602 S.W.3d 536, 539 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (quoting In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)). In either event, 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 2 This original proceeding arises from trial court cause number 26-05-93630-B in the 135th District Court of Victoria County, Texas. This Court has previously addressed an appeal and a petition for writ of mandamus arising from this same trial court cause number. See Perez v. Survivors Network of Those Abused By Priests, Inc, No. 13-26-00470-CV, 2026 WL 2350020, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi– Edinburg Aug. 13, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (dissolving a temporary injunction); In re Perez, No. 13-26- 00561-CV, 2026 WL 2212242, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg July 31, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying relief). In conjunction with this original proceeding, relator concurrently filed a different petition for writ of mandamus, docketed in our appellate cause number 13-26-00631-CV, which we dispose of by separate memorandum opinion issued on this same date. See In re Perez, No. 13-26-00631-CV, 2026 WL _____, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg ____, __, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Finally, relator currently has an appeal pending from this same case that has been filed in our appellate cause number 13-26-00603-CV. 2 applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). 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. YSMAEL D. FONSECA Justice Delivered and filed on the 11th day of September, 2026. 3