In Re Janet McGinn v. the State of Texas

In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-25-00062-CV

IN RE JANET MCGINN

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Janet McGinn, proceeding pro se, petitions for mandamus relief against the trial

court. McGinn contends that, on June 27, 2025, and without her agreement, the trial court

permitted her counsel to withdraw. On July 22, 2025 (twenty-five days later), McGinn now

petitions this Court to stop the trial court from proceeding with a “complex final hearing”

scheduled on July 25 (three days after the filing of her petition).

McGinn contends that she sought a continuance in the trial court. McGinn complains

that the trial court denied her motion for continuance. McGinn’s petition, however, does not set

forth when that motion for continuance was filed. More importantly, McGinn did not bring

forward copies of the relevant documents from the trial court proceedings.

“Mandamus issues only when the mandamus record establishes (1) a clear abuse of

discretion . . . , and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate remedy at law.” In re Blakeney, 254

S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding) (citing Cantu v. Longoria, 878

S.W.2d 131, 132 (Tex. 1994) (per curiam) (orig. proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d

833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)). “It is the relator’s burden to provide this Court

with a sufficient record to establish his or her right to mandamus relief.” Id. (citing Walker, 827

S.W.2d at 839–40; In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 187 S.W.3d 197, 198–99 (Tex. App.—

Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding)); see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3, 52.7(a).

Rule 52.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requires the person filing the

petition for a writ of mandamus to “certify that he or she has reviewed the petition and concluded

that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the

2
appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). Rule 52.3(k) of the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure requires a petitioner to provide “a certified or sworn copy of any . . . document

showing the matter complained of.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(B). Rule 52.7(a) of the Texas

Rules of Appellate Procedure requires a petitioner to file the following along with her petition

for a writ of mandamus:

(1) a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s
claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding; and

(2) a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any
underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence, or a statement
that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained.

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a).

McGinn’s petition does not contain the certification required by Rule 52.3(j). Nor does

her petition contain any of the documents required by Rules 52.3(k)(1)(B) and 52.7(a). McGinn

did not submit the complained-of order of the trial court, nor did she include her motion for

continuance. Likewise, McGinn did not submit any response to her motion by the real parties-

in-interest, nor did she submit any transcript of any relevant hearing. Without those critical

documents, we are unable to evaluate whether the trial court abused its discretion.

“‘Because the record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by the parties,’ we must

‘strictly enforce[] the authentication requirements of rule 52 to ensure the integrity of the

mandamus record.’” In re Porter, No. 06-21-00054-CV, 2021 WL 2425251, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Texarkana June 15, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (alteration in original) (quoting In re

Morehead, No. 06-21-00025-CV, 2021 WL 1652064, at *2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Apr. 28,

3
2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)). When a relator does “not comply with the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure, we deny the petition.” Id. at *2.

As a result, we deny McGinn’s petition for a writ of mandamus.1

Jeff Rambin
Justice

Date Submitted: July 23, 2025
Date Decided: July 24, 2025

1
In light of this resolution, we deny McGinn’s motion for emergency relief as moot.
4