Dallas Court Denies Mandamus Relief for Failure to Satisfy Predicate-Request Requirement

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garcia, 05-26-00122-CV, February 05, 2026.

On appeal from the 494th District Court of Collin County.

Synopsis

The Dallas Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus seeking relief from a trial court’s capias order because the relator failed to satisfy the mandatory predicate-request requirement. The Court reaffirmed that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when a relator can demonstrate both a clear abuse of discretion and the absence of an adequate remedy by appeal, which generally requires first asking the trial court to correct the perceived error. Because the relator did not seek to vacate or modify the capias order at the trial level before seeking appellate intervention, the petition was procedurally deficient.

Relevance to Family Law

In the context of family law enforcement proceedings, capias orders are frequently issued when a party fails to appear for a contempt hearing or a commitment order. This decision serves as a critical reminder for family law litigators that the “extraordinary” nature of mandamus relief necessitates a clean procedural record. Even in scenarios where a client’s liberty may eventually be at risk, counsel cannot bypass the trial court. Before seeking a writ from the Court of Appeals to set aside a capias or enforcement order, the practitioner must filing a motion to vacate or modify the order in the trial court and obtain a clear refusal. Failing to do so—unless one can meet the incredibly high bar of the “futility” exception—will result in a summary denial at the appellate level, costing the client time and money without reaching the merits of the underlying legal error.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Relator Thanh Van Tran filed an original proceeding seeking mandamus relief from a capias order issued by the 494th District Court of Collin County. While the relator sought to challenge the validity of the capias, the Court of Appeals first addressed a threshold procedural issue: whether the relator had sought relief from the trial court before escalating the matter. The Court also noted a jurisdictional distinction regarding the form of relief requested; because a capias order, standing alone, does not constitute sufficient “restraint” to trigger habeas corpus jurisdiction under Dallas COA precedent, the Court treated the petition strictly as a request for mandamus relief. The record provided by the relator failed to include any evidence that the trial court was asked to withdraw, vacate, or modify the capias order prior to the filing of the petition for writ of mandamus.

Issues Decided

The primary issue decided was whether a relator is entitled to mandamus relief from a trial court’s capias order when the record fails to demonstrate that the relator made a predicate request for the trial court to vacate or modify the order and that the trial court refused.

Rules Applied

The Court applied the standard for mandamus relief set forth in In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004), requiring a showing of a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy by appeal. Specifically, the Court relied on In re Eagleridge Operating, LLC, 642 S.W.3d 518 (Tex. 2022), which establishes the “predicate-request requirement.” This rule mandates that a relator must generally request action by the respondent (the trial judge) and receive an erroneous refusal before seeking mandamus. Finally, the Court referenced In re Perritt, 992 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. 1999), regarding the “futility exception,” which allows for the relaxation of the predicate-request requirement only in rare circumstances where the request would be a mere formality.

Application

The Court’s analysis focused on the relator’s failure to satisfy the procedural prerequisites for extraordinary relief. Justice Garcia, writing for the Court, explained that the right to mandamus relief is not automatic and is heavily contingent upon the relator’s diligence in the trial court. The Court examined the record and concluded that the relator had not shown compliance with the predicate-request requirement. Specifically, the relator did not demonstrate that he had asked the 494th District Court to vacate the capias order.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the potential for the “futility exception.” For this exception to apply, the relator would have had to show that the circumstances confirmed that a request to the trial court would have been little more than a formality. The Court found that the relator failed to carry the burden of showing this was one of the “rare occasions” where the requirement could be relaxed. Consequently, the Court did not reach the merits of whether the capias order itself was an abuse of discretion, as the procedural failure was dispositive.

Holding

The Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus. The holding establishes that a relator cannot meet the burden for mandamus relief regarding a capias order without first presenting the objection to the trial court and obtaining a ruling, or proving that such an effort would be futile.

Because the petition for writ of mandamus was denied on procedural grounds, the Court further held that the relator’s motion for temporary emergency relief was moot and denied it accordingly.

Practical Application

For the family law practitioner, this case emphasizes the necessity of a “Motion to Vacate” as a prerequisite for mandamus. If you believe a trial court has improperly issued a capias—perhaps due to lack of notice, improper service, or an underlying void order—you must create a “refusal record.” This means filing a written motion to vacate the capias, requesting a hearing, and ensuring you have an order or a clear on-the-record refusal from the bench. Rushing to the Court of Appeals without this step is a strategic error that will likely result in a denial under Eagleridge Operating.

Checklists

Satisfying the Predicate-Request Requirement

• Verify the Order: Ensure the capias order is signed and included in the mandamus record.
• File a Motion to Vacate: Draft and file a formal motion in the trial court specifically requesting that the capias be withdrawn or modified.
• Obtain a Ruling: Set the motion for a hearing or request a ruling on the submission. A signed order denying the motion is the gold standard for the mandamus record.
• Record the Refusal: If the judge refuses to sign an order, ensure the court reporter records the judge’s refusal to act on the record.

Avoiding Procedural Dismissal in Original Proceedings

• Identify the Proper Writ: Distinguish between habeas corpus (actual restraint/custody) and mandamus (challenging the order itself). As noted in In re Ruff, a capias alone usually requires mandamus.
• Build the Appendix: Include the motion to vacate and the subsequent order of refusal in the record submitted to the Court of Appeals.
• Argue Futility (If Applicable): If you must skip the predicate request, you must provide specific facts and authorities proving that the trial court’s previous actions make a request a “mere formality.” Note that this is rarely successful.

Citation

In re Thanh Van Tran, No. 05-26-00122-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 5, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Full Opinion Link

~~7cc8b317-4356-4091-96d6-13ee038d7dc0~~