In Re N.N. and K.N., Relators v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed December 4, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-25-00314-CV
__________

IN RE N.N. AND K.N.

Original Mandamus Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relators have jointly filed an amended pro se petition for writ of mandamus
and emergency motions for expedited consideration and temporary relief. Relators
are represented by counsel in the underlying suit, and are not entitled to hybrid
representation in a mandamus proceeding. See In re Siegel, No. 05-25-00860-CV,
2025 WL 2097709, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 25, 2025, orig. proceeding) (mem.
op.) (denying pro se petition for writ of mandamus where relator was represented by
counsel in trial court). The absence of a right to hybrid representation means
Relators’ pro se amended petition for writ of mandamus presents nothing for this
court to consider. See In re Toscano, No. 04-07-00546-CV, 2007 WL 2376034, at
*1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Aug. 22, 2007, orig. proceeding) (citing Gray v.
Shipley, 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig.
proceeding)). Consequently, we directed Relators to file a response showing cause
why their amended petition should not be denied on the basis of hybrid
representation.
After reviewing Relators’ response, we conclude that Relators are not entitled
to proceed pro se in this original proceeding because they continue to be represented
by counsel in the underlying suit. Accordingly, we deny Relators’ petition for writ
of mandamus. All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

W. BRUCE WILLIAMS
JUSTICE

December 4, 2025
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

2