In Re Guardianship of Eveyln Ramirez, an Incapacitated Person v. the State of Texas

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
————————————
No. 08-25-00233-CV
————————————
In re Guardianship of Evelyn Ramirez, an Incapacitated Person

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN MANDAMUS

M E MO RA N D UM O PI NI O N
Relator Olga Alcantara, who is representing herself, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus

against the Honorable Eduardo Gamboa, Judge of Probate Court No. 2 in El Paso County, Texas,

challenging and seeking a stay of a September 15, 2025 order, which Judge Gamboa issued in her

daughter’s guardianship proceeding. For the following reasons, we deny Alcantara’s petition as

well as her request for a stay. We further deny Alcantara’s request that we assist her with obtaining

additional records from the court reporter.

I. BACKGROUND

Alcantara’s daughter, Evelyn Ramirez (Evelyn), was involved in an automobile accident

while visiting family in El Paso in January 2024, which caused her to suffer a traumatic brain

injury. Following a series of hearings, and over Alcantara’s objections, on December 5, 2024, the
probate court appointed Evelyn’s father, Carlos Ramirez (Carlos)1, as permanent guardian of

Evelyn’s person and estate, after finding her fully incapacitated.

On September 4, 2025, Carlos filed a “Motion to Settle” a 2018 federal civil rights lawsuit

against three El Paso police officers, in which he was a plaintiff in his capacity as Evelyn’s

guardian. The motion asserted that Carlos, through his legal representation, had “secured a

confidential settlement with the responsible parties for the incident.” Maintaining that the

settlement would be in Evelyn’s best interest, he sought a trial court order “authorizing [him]

through his legal representation, to settle the claims described herein, and for such other orders as

the Court may deem proper.” The same day, Carlos filed a “Motion to Approve Contract with

Attorney,” attaching a copy of a contract he had entered into in his capacity as Evelyn’s guardian

with the law firm of Flores Mendez, P.C. (the Firm) on December 16, 2024, allowing the Firm to

represent him as Evelyn’s guardian in the civil rights lawsuit.

Alcantara objected to both motions as an “interested person.” She complained that she had

not been provided with “the settlement agreement, release language, lien/payoff statements, or net-

to-Ward recovery,” asserting that her rights would be violated if the probate court approved a

settlement agreement without allowing her to review the agreement and assess whether it would

be “truly in Evelyn’s best interest.” She also contended that the 40% contingency fee was

“excessive”; there was a conflict of interest with the Firm, noting that the Firm, and attorney Jessica

Mendez in particular, was also representing Carlos in the guardianship proceeding; and there was

an “absence of any disclosure regarding expenses, liens, or net recovery to Evelyn.” In her request

for relief, she asked the probate court not to approve the attorney contract; “[r]equire full disclosure

of the settlement agreement(s), release(s), lien statements, and net-to-Ward recovery before

1
We refer to Carlos and Evelyn by their first names to avoid confusion since they share the same last name.

2
considering approval”; find that Carlos breached his fiduciary duty to Evelyn by his actions in this

matter; and “[a]ppoint an independent guardian ad litem to review any proposed settlement or

contract for conflicts of interest and best-interest determinations.”

In a supplement to her opposition, Alcantara sought an updated medical examination of

Evelyn, expressing her belief that Evelyn was no longer fully incapacitated and that to continue

her guardianship without an updated examination would violate her constitutional rights. Alcantara

alleged Carlos was violating his duties to Evelyn by not requesting a new examination. She also

challenged Carlos’s continued appointment as Evelyn’s guardian, complaining about, among other

things, Evelyn’s expressed desire to be “placed” in Alcantara’s care. Both Alcantara and Evelyn’s

sister provided affidavits averring they had heard Evelyn say she did not want to remain in El Paso

and wished to live with them in New Jersey instead. The two provided additional affidavits stating

Evelyn had told them she did not know who Jessica Mendez was.

The probate court set a hearing on Carlos’s motions to settle and approve attorney contracts

on September 15, 2025. Prior to the hearing, Alcantara filed a motion for a continuance, again

complaining that she had not received the proposed settlement agreement and that she believed

Evelyn should undergo an updated examination prior to the hearing. The probate court declined to

continue the hearing but allowed Alcantara to appear remotely over Carlos’s objections.

At the hearing, Judge Gamboa informed Alcantara that the proposed settlement agreement

was confidential, that it had not yet been finalized, and that he had not yet seen it. When she

objected to him approving the agreement without seeing it, Judge Gamboa responded that he would

decide on its approval after he received the finalized agreement. Alcantara renewed her objections

regarding the lack of an updated medical examination and her claim that Evelyn wished to have

Alcantara appointed as guardian in place of Carlos. Judge Gamboa informed her that those issues

3
were not before the court at the time and that she would need to file separate motions before he

could consider them.

II. THE CHALLENGED ORDER

Following the hearing, and relevant to the petition before us, Judge Gamboa entered an

“Order on Motion to Settle” dated September 15, 2025, granting the motion to settle:

On this day, the Court considered the Motion to Settle filed by Carlos
Ramirez, Permanent Guardian of the Person and Estate of Evelyn Ramirez, an
Incapacitated Person.

The Court, having considered the Motion, the evidence presented, and the
arguments of counsel, finds that granting the Motion is in the best interest of the
Ward and that the Motion should be GRANTED.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that
Carlos Ramirez, Permanent Guardian of the Person and Estate of Evelyn Ramirez,
is hereby authorized, through his legal representation, to enter into and finalize the
settlement of the civil rights violation lawsuit . . . in accordance with the terms
presented to this Court.
Alcantara appealed the September 15th order, describing the order as approving the

settlement and the attorney contract, and denying her request for a continuance.2 After we notified

Alcantara that the September 15th order did not appear to be appealable, she filed a “Motion to

Designate Appeal as Original Proceeding and Request for Extension of Time to File Mandamus

Petition and Record.” We granted the motion on November 20, 2025. See CMH Homes v. Perez,

340 S.W.3d 444, 453–54 (Tex. 2011) (treating appeal as mandamus petition “because [Appellant]

specifically requested mandamus relief” in the alternative). Because the clerk’s record and

2
Judge Gamboa’s order approving the attorney contract was issued as a separate order on September 25, 2025.
Alcantara did not file a notice of appeal from that order, nor does she challenge that order in her petition for a writ of
mandamus. We further note that Alcantara filed a “Notice of Accelerated Interlocutory Appeal” from an order
Judge Gamboa issued on September 19, 2025, relating to Carlos’s “Motion for Bond on Costs of Proceeding.” We
address Alcantara’s appeal from that order separately in cause number 08-25-00335-CV.

4
reporter’s record had already been filed, we ordered Alcantara to file her Petition by November

30, 2025.3

Alcantara has now filed her petition, in which she requests that we vacate Judge Gamboa’s

September 15th order and issue a stay of that order pending resolution of her petition.4 For the

reasons explained below, we deny her petition and motion for stay.

III. APPLICABLE LAW AND STANDARD FOR GRANTING MANDAMUS RELIEF

In general, “mandamus relief is available only to correct a clear abuse of discretion when

there is no other adequate remedy at law.” Flightline Escrow, LLC v. Leavelle, 720 S.W.3d 415,

428 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2025, no pet.) (citing In re Acceptance Indem. Ins. Co., 562 S.W.3d 655,

659 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2018, no pet.)). A trial court clearly abuses its discretion when its

decision is “so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” Id.

(citing In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003) (per curiam)). “A trial court has no

discretion in determining what the law is or in applying the law to the particular facts.” Id. (citing

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004)). Therefore, “if the trial court

fails to analyze or apply the law correctly, it has clearly abused its discretion.” Id. (citing

Acceptance Indem. Ins. Co., 562 S.W.3d at 659).

3
The Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that a relator must file an appendix to a petition in an original proceeding
with certified copies of the order complained of any relevant documents. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1)(B) (requiring
an appendix to a petition that includes “a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document
showing the matter complained of”); Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a) (requiring “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 “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”). In her appendix,
Alcantara refers to the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record of the September 15, 2025 hearing, both of which were
already on file with this Court, but she stated that she was also seeking the records of six other hearings held in the
case prior to September 15, 2025. She sought our assistance in obtaining those records from the court reporter. As
explained below, we do not find them relevant to our analysis.
4
We note that on December 12, 2025, Alcantara filed with this Court a notice that the parties to the civil proceeding
had signed and filed a “Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice” in the federal civil lawsuit.

5
“Mandamus should not issue to correct grievances that may be addressed by other

remedies.” Id. (citing In re Columbia Med. Ctr. of Las Colinas, Subsidiary, L.P., 290 S.W.3d 204,

207 (Tex. 2009)). In addition, Rule 33.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure “requires that

a party must first present its complaint to the trial court and obtain a ruling on that complaint” in

both direct appeals and in mandamus proceedings. In re Polymerica, LLC, 271 S.W.3d 442, 448

(Tex. App.—El Paso 2008) (citing In re East Texas Med. Ctr. Athens, 154 S.W.3d 933, 936

(Tex. App.—Tyler 2005, orig. proceeding), subsequent mandamus proceeding, 296 S.W.3d 74

(Tex. 2009); West v. Solito, 563 S.W.2d 240, 244–45 (Tex. 1978) (orig. proceeding)).

Finally, the Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that a petition in an original proceeding

“must contain a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to

authorities and to the appendix or record.” See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(h). A relator waives her

contentions upon failing to cite authority supporting her claims as required by the Rules of

Appellate Procedure. See In re KVIA-Channel 7, No. 08-24-00330-CV, 2024 WL 4333180, at *3

(Tex. App.—El Paso Sept. 27, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that relator was not entitled

to mandamus relief where it did not comply with Rule 52.3(h) requiring citation to applicable legal

authority in support of its contentions); see also In re Hartigan, 107 S.W.3d 684, 688–89

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, no pet.) (where relator did not comply with the “Rules of

Appellate Procedure obligat[ing] one seeking mandamus relief to include in the petition ‘a clear

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

appendix or record,’ we hold [Relator] waived this contention”); In re C.F., 576 S.W.3d 761, 772

(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2019, no pet.) (denying mandamus relief where relator cited no authority

in her petition in support of her claim). When, as here, a party appears pro se, she is “held to the

same standards as a licensed attorney and must comply with all applicable laws and rules of

6
procedure.” See Robb v. Horizon Communities Improvement Ass’n, Inc., 417 S.W.3d 585, 590

(Tex. App.—El Paso 2013, no pet.).

IV. ANALYSIS

In her petition, Alcantara contends we should find that Judge Gamboa’s September 15th

order was void for a variety of reasons, and we should direct him to vacate the order as well as

order the “immediate suspension of all actions taken in reliance” on the order. For the following

reasons, we decline to do so.

A. We do not review issues unrelated to the September 15th order

As a preliminary matter, we note that many, if not most, of the reasons that Alcantara

contends the September 15th order is void do not relate to any errors pertaining to the order itself,

but to various “structural due process violations” she believes the court committed during the

guardianship proceedings. Among other things, she complains that Carlos was not properly

appointed as guardian and that the trial court erred “by refusing to remove [Carlos as] an unfit

guardian[.]” According to Alcantara, he allowed Evelyn to be isolated and mistreated, asserting

she was living with her grandmother who was “elderly, diabetic, partially blind, and unable to

provide adequate supervision for an adult with a traumatic brain injury,” and Carlos had suppressed

Evelyn’s expressed wishes to live in her home state of New Jersey and have Alcantara serve as her

guardian. Alcantara complains that Judge Gamboa failed to “require mandatory evaluations and

accountings” and ignored his “statutory duties designed to protect incapacitated adults[.]” Based

on these alleged errors, in addition to requesting that we vacate the September 15th order,

Alcantara asks us to direct Judge Gamboa to remove Jessica Mendez from her role as Carlos’s

attorney due to alleged conflicts of interest; order new “conflict-free” counsel to represent Evelyn’s

interests; remove Carlos as the guardian for “restricting [Alcantara’s] access to [Evelyn],

7
suppressing [Evelyn’s] stated preferences, failing to provide statutory accountings, and failing to

ensure [Evelyn’s] safe placement”; order an updated medical examination of Evelyn; order a full

accounting of Evelyn’s estate; and restore Alcantara’s right to visit and communicate fully with

Evelyn.

Alcantara has not cited any authority for the proposition that any of the alleged errors she

claims Judge Gamboa made, or any deficiencies in Carlos’s performance as guardian, would

render the challenged September 15th order void. See In re KVIA-Channel 7, 2024 WL 4333180,

at *3 (requiring citation to legal authority to support claims in a mandamus proceeding). Moreover,

her challenges to the trial court’s prior orders relating to Carlos’s appointment and her right to

visitation with Evelyn, as well as any failure by Carlos to fulfill his duties as guardian, were not

addressed in the September 15th order and are therefore improper collateral attacks not before us

in this proceeding. See, e.g., Jones v. Griffith, 109 S.W.2d 565, 566 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1937,

no writ) (concluding that a challenge to a judgment approving guardian’s agreement to sell estate

property on the ground that the guardian was not duly authorized to act on the estate’s behalf was

an improper collateral attack on guardian’s authority to act on the ward’s behalf). Alcantara has

not provided any authority that would allow this Court to consider her collateral complaints about

the guardianship proceedings in the current writ proceeding, or to direct Judge Gamboa to issue

orders with respect to those unaddressed complaints. We therefore do not consider those

complaints in our analysis. See In re Polymerica, LLC, 271 S.W.3d at 448 (recognizing that

appellate court will not consider complaints that were not addressed in lower court’s order in a

mandamus proceeding challenging the order).

8
B. Alcantara did not meet her burden of establishing an abuse of discretion

Turning to Alcantara’s direct challenges to the September 15th order, Alcantara contends

Judge Gamboa “abused [his] discretion by approving a settlement [he] did not review, did not

understand, and did not have authority to approve.” According to Alcantara, a “probate judge

cannot approve a settlement blindfolded,” and we should declare the order void because “[n]o

written agreement was presented”; “[n]o evidence was submitted”; “[n]o terms, amounts, or

distributions were disclosed”; “[and] [n]o best-interest inquiry occurred.” Alcantara further

complains that the court erred by excluding Evelyn from the hearing; by failing to order an

“updated neurological or psychological evaluation”; and by moving forward without Evelyn ever

having met attorney Jessica Mendez, who was preventing her from “expressing her wishes during

calls.”

Alcantara has not cited any authority in support of her contentions that the court abused its

discretion by failing to ensure Evelyn’s presence at the hearing, by not having Evelyn’s consent to

the agreement, and by not ordering an updated medical examination before issuing the

September 15th order. See In re KVIA-Channel 7, 2024 WL 4333180, at *3 (recognizing

requirement in appellate rules that relator must cite to applicable legal authority in support of her

mandamus claims). Nor does she cite any authority for the proposition that Judge Gamboa lacked

the authority to issue the September 15th order. Though she contends Judge Gamboa violated the

Estates Code by issuing the order, Alcantara has not specified which provisions of the Code she

believes he violated.5

5
The only provision in the Estates Code Alcantara cites in her petition is § 1101.152. But that provision only addresses
the findings of fact the probate court must enter when it issues an “order appointing a guardian with limited authority.”
See Tex. Estates Code Ann. § 1101.152. It has no applicability to the probate court’s right to authorize a guardian to
enter into a settlement agreement.

9
Accordingly, based on Alcantara’s failure to provide any legal authority in support of her

claim that Judge Gamboa abused his discretion in issuing the September 15th order, we conclude

that Alcantara has not met her burden of demonstrating her entitlement to mandamus relief. Id. We

therefore deny Alcantara’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Emergency Motion for Stay.

C. We deny Alcantara’s request to order the court reporter to transcribe additional
hearing records
Finally, we address Alcantara’s request that we order the court reporter to transcribe six

additional hearing records in this matter, to include hearings on: August 6, 2024; August 12, 2024;

October 21, 2024; October 29, 2024; December 5, 2024; and September 11, 2024. We note that

the clerk’s record does not indicate that a hearing was held on September 11, 2024, and the court

reporter does not indicate that Alcantara requested a record of a hearing on that date from her. We

therefore only consider Alcantara’s request for records of the other five hearings.

To ascertain the relevance of those five hearings, we ordered the court reporter to provide

a summary description of each hearing. In her response, the court reporter informed us that the

five hearings related to the appointment of Carlos as Evelyn’s guardian and to visitation issues.6

As explained above, those issues are collateral to the issues decided in Judge Gamboa’s

September 15th order, and those five hearings are therefore not relevant to the current proceeding

and our analysis of whether he abused his discretion in issuing that order. Accordingly, we deny

Alcantara’s request to order the court reporter to transcribe additional hearings in this cause

number and we deny as moot the court reporter’s request for additional time to produce the hearing

records.7

6
The court reporter also indicated that Alcantara requested the record of a hearing that occurred on January 20, 2025,
but the reporter states that no record was made of that hearing.
7
In her response, the court reporter informed us that Alcantara has also requested a record of a hearing that took place
on May 22, 2025, relating to a “Motion for Bond for Costs of Proceedings” Carlos filed in May 2025. The record
reflects that Judge Gamboa issued an order relative to that motion on September 19, 2025. As set forth above, Alcantara

10
V. CONCLUSION

Alcantara has failed to establish her entitlement to mandamus relief or to a stay of the

September 15th order. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and motion for

stay. We further deny Alcantara’s request that we direct the court reporter to transcribe any

additional hearing records relative to this matter. All pending motions are denied as moot.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

January 16, 2026

Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.

appealed from that order, which is currently pending in cause number 08-25-00335-CV. The September 19th order
has no applicability to the current mandamus proceeding.

11