In Re James McCoy v. the State of Texas

Opinion issued January 22, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals
For The

First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-26-00045-CV
———————————
IN RE JAMES MCCOY, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, James McCoy, currently incarcerated and proceeding pro se, filed a

petition for a writ of mandamus asserting that the trial court failed to perform a

ministerial duty “to adequately address [r]elator’s Motion to Redress properly filed
and before the [trial] court.”1 Relator requested that this Court issue a writ of

mandamus directing the trial court to “promptly address his Motion to Redress.”

“A trial court is required to consider and rule on a properly filed and pending

motion within a reasonable time.” In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 661 (Tex.

App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding). Consequently, mandamus relief may

issue to compel a trial court to rule on a motion when the trial court does not rule in

a timely fashion. See In re OxyVinyls, LP, No. 01-23-00708-CV, 2023 WL 8938412,

at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 28, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

However, to be entitled to mandamus relief for failure to perform a ministerial

duty, a relator must establish that the trial court (1) had a legal duty to perform a

non-discretionary act, (2) was asked to perform the act, and (3) failed or refused to

do so. In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig.

proceeding). We may not conclude that the trial court has failed or refused to act if

relator does not establish that the trial court was aware of its obligation to act. See

In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d at 662 (“The trial court is not required to consider a

motion unless it is called to the court’s attention.”).

Here, while relator has included a file-stamped copy of his “Motion to

Redress” in the mandamus record, there is no showing that the motion has been

1
The underlying case is James McCoy v. Sylvia Hightower, Cause No. 036819, in the
506th District Court of Grimes County, Texas, the Honorable Gary W. Chaney
presiding.

2
brought to the attention of the trial court. Id. (“Showing that a motion was filed with

the court clerk does not constitute proof that the motion was brought to the trial

court’s attention or presented to the trial court with a request for a ruling.”). Nor

does the mandamus record include any evidence that relator has made a demand on

the trial court to rule on the motion. See In re Davidson, 153 S.W.3d 490, 491 (Tex.

App.—Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding) (concluding relator was not entitled to

mandamus relief where relator failed to show “that demand has been made upon

[trial court] for action on the alleged motion filed with the trial court clerk”).

Accordingly, we conclude that relator has failed to establish he is entitled to

mandamus relief, and therefore, the Court denies relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Guerra, Caughey, and Dokupil.

3