Full Opinion

NUMBER 13-26-00741-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG IN RE WILLIAM TRAVIS HAWK JR. AND REBECCA HAWK ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Silva, Peña, and West Memorandum Opinion by Justice West 1 By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, relators William Travis Hawk Jr. and Rebecca Mae Hawk assert that two respondents have abused their discretion by: (1) failing to rule on relators’ motion for ADA accommodations and an objection “before the in-person hearing those matters concern”; and (2) denying relators’ statement of inability to pay costs as evidenced in a supplemental clerk’s record filed in our appellate cause 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). number 13-26-00285-CV “with no hearing, no findings, and no notice of the right to challenge it.” See Hawk v. Killebrew Inc., No. 13-26-00285-CV, 2026 WL 2283547, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Aug. 6, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.), mand. denied sub nom. In re Hawk, No. 26-0856 (Tex. Oct. 2, 2026), available at https://www.txcourts. gov/supreme/orders-opinions/2026/october/october-2-2026 (last visited Oct. 30, 2026). 2 Relators have also filed an emergency motion for temporary relief seeking to stay hearings in the underlying cause which are set for November 17, 2026, and December 1, 2026. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(a). “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). Mandamus is discretionary in nature and it is governed by equitable principles. In re First Rsrv. Mgmt., L.P., 671 S.W.3d 653, 663 (Tex. 2023) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). 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). “A court abuses its discretion if no evidence supports the finding on which its ruling rests and if the court could reasonably have reached only a contrary conclusion.” In re AutoZoners, LLC, 694 S.W.3d 219, 223 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). We conduct a “benefits- 2 See also In re Hawk, No. 13-26-00730-CV, 2026 WL 3257239, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi– Edinburg Oct. 27, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Hawk, No. 13-26-00647-CV, 2026 WL 2886790, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Sept. 25, 2026, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.); In re Hawk, No. 13-26-00476-CV, 2026 WL 1766205, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg June 18, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Hawk, No. 13-26-00226-CV, 2026 WL 817238, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Mar. 24, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) 2 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 trial court has the ministerial duty to consider and rule on pending motions that were properly filed, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial court to act. In re Liverman, 658 S.W.3d 881, 882 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2022, orig. proceeding). The relator must establish that the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed or refused to rule on the motion within a reasonable time. In re Robbins, 622 S.W.3d 600, 601 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. proceeding) (per curiam). The relator must show that the trial court received, was aware of, and was asked to rule on the motion. In re Greater McAllen Star Props., Inc., 444 S.W.3d 743, 748 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2014, orig. proceeding). Merely filing a document with the district clerk neither imputes the clerk’s knowledge of the filing to the trial court nor equates to a request that the trial court rule on the motion. In re Huang, 491 S.W.3d 383, 385 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2016, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]). Whether a reasonable period has elapsed is dependent on the circumstances of each case. In re GTG Sols., Inc., 642 S.W.3d 47, 50 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021, orig. proceeding). The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, the limited record provided, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relators have not met their burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny relators’ emergency motion for temporary relief and the petition for writ of mandamus. JON WEST Justice 3 Delivered and filed on the 30th day of October, 2026. 4