In Re Meagan Kate Gratz v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-25-00482-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE MEAGAN KATE GRATZ

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and West
Memorandum Opinion by Justice West 1

Relator Meagan Kate Gratz, proceeding pro se, has filed an amended petition for

writ of mandamus through which she asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by:

(1) restricting her possession of minor children following in chambers interviews with the

children; (2) denying her motion to enforce possession and revoke the real party in

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).
interest’s “license” despite repeated violations; and (3) postponing a hearing on her

motion for a protective order while granting a motion for protective order filed by the real

party in interest “creating unequal treatment and exposure to abusive discovery.” Relator

further asserts that the trial court’s refusal to enforce possession of the minor children has

prejudiced her “by holding the children responsible” and might also prejudice the future

trial of this matter.

Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem.

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836,

840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148

S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that: (1) the trial

court abused its discretion; and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re

USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833,

839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

“The relator bears the burden of proving these two requirements.” In re H.E.B.

Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Walker,

827 S.W.2d at 840; 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 applicant for a writ of

mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). The relator

must provide a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief. Walker, 827

S.W.2d at 837; In re Monson Law Firm, LLC, 714 S.W.3d 256, 264 (Tex. App.—Corpus

Christi–Edinburg 2025, orig. proceeding); In re J.A.L., 645 S.W.3d 922, 924 (Tex. App.—

El Paso 2022, orig. proceeding); In re Schreck, 642 S.W.3d 925, 927 (Tex. App.—

2
Amarillo 2022, orig. proceeding); see generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52 (governing original

proceedings), R. 52.7 (delineating the contents of the record), R. 52.3(k) (describing the

necessary contents for the appendix).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the amended petition for writ of

mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met her burden

to obtain relief. 2 Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus does not “contain a clear and

concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and

to the appendix or record,” relator failed to file an appendix, and relator’s record fails to

support her contention that the trial court abused its discretion. See id. R. 52.3(h), (k),

52.7. Accordingly, we deny relator’s amended petition for writ of mandamus without

prejudice.

JON WEST
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
14th day of October, 2025.

2 Relator filed a “Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs” in this original proceeding.

See TEX. R. CIV. P. 154. Thereafter, real party in interest William Christopher Davis filed a motion to require
relator to pay her court costs on grounds that relator’s statement was legally insufficient and she was
“voluntarily unemployed.” See id. The Court, in its sole discretion and for the purposes of this specific
original proceeding only, allows the relator to proceed in this case without the payment of costs.
Accordingly, we deny Davis’s motion.

3