Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-26-00368-CV IN RE RICKY DON GREEN, RELATOR ORIGINAL PROCEEDING October 2, 2026 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER, C.J., and DOSS and PRATT, JJ. Pending before this Court is the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Relator Ricky Don Green. By his petition, he requests that this Court direct Respondent, the Honorable Tom W. Brummett, presiding judge of the County Court at Law No. 2 of Lubbock County, Texas, to vacate the temporary restraining order and the amended temporary restraining order (the TROs), signed August 18 and August 21, 2026, granted upon the request of Real Party in Interest Patrick Linenberger. We dismiss the petition as moot. BACKGROUND Shortly after Green filed his petition in this Court, Linenberger filed his Motion to Vacate Temporary Restraining Orders in the trial court. The trial court, mindful of the temporary stay this Court entered on August 25, 2026, declined to act on the motion. Linenberger then sought relief from this Court in which he asked that we modify the stay to permit the trial court to consider and rule upon his pending Motion to Vacate Temporary Restraining Orders. We so modified our stay. See In re Green, No. 07-26-00368-CV, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 8859, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Sept. 17, 2026, order). On September 23, the trial court filed with this Court a supplemental clerk’s record which includes, inter alia, its Order Vacating Temporary Restraining Order. In it, the trial court expressly “VACATES both the Temporary Restraining Order and Amended Restraining Order in their entirety.” ANALYSIS The doctrine of mootness is applicable to our subject-matter jurisdiction in an original proceeding. See In re Carlson, 712 S.W.3d 71, 75 (Tex. 2025) (orig. proceeding) (concluding that a dispute concerning judicial review of administrative ruling no longer remained considering a party’s reversal of position, and, consequently, the petition for writ of mandamus was dismissed as moot). As our sister court has detailed, we cannot act when a justiciable controversy existed between the parties at the time the case arose, but later, during the pendency of the case, ceased to exist due to subsequent events: When directing a trial court to vacate an order that can have no practical effect, we will not issue a writ of mandamus if it would be useless or unavailing. See Dow Chem. Co. v. Garcia, 909 S.W.2d 503, 505 (Tex. 1995). Nor will an appellate court issue a writ of mandamus to compel the doing of a meaningless action. Cont’l Oil Co. v. Lesher, 500 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1973, no pet.). In re Smith Cnty., 521 S.W.3d 447, 453 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2017, orig. proceeding). 2 Here, in light of the trial court’s order vacating the very orders that are subject of Green’s petition for writ mandamus, we consider the controversy concerning the propriety of the TROs as having been resolved. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is now moot, and we lack jurisdiction to reach its merits. Accord In re Silver Hays, No. 07- 21-00019-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 2550, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr. 1, 2021, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (dismissing petition when “the original order underlying this mandamus proceeding and the argument surrounding its propriety” were rendered moot by trial court’s subsequent orders on reconsideration of the controversy); In re Jackson, No. 07-19-00054-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 1423, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 26, 2019, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (dismissing petition for writ of mandamus when “trial court has provided relator the relief he sought in this mandamus proceeding”). CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing reasoning, we dismiss Green’s petition for writ of mandamus as moot. The order we entered on August 25 and modified on September 9, 2026, granting a temporary stay of proceedings is hereby dissolved. Any remaining motions carried with the case are hereby denied. Laura A. W. Pratt Justice 3