Don’t Leapfrog the Trial Court: COA Lacks Jurisdiction to Mandamus County Clerks Over Filing Disputes
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Kennedy, 05-26-00133-CV, February 05, 2026.
On appeal from Collin County
Synopsis
The Fifth Court of Appeals dismissed an original proceeding for want of jurisdiction where the relators sought a writ of mandamus to compel a county clerk to file specific documents. The court reaffirmed that its mandamus authority over county clerks is strictly limited by Texas Government Code § 22.221 to circumstances where the writ is necessary to protect or enforce the court’s own appellate jurisdiction.
Relevance to Family Law
In high-conflict family law litigation, practitioners can encounter administrative hurdles with county clerks regarding the filing of sensitive documents, such as sealed records, emergency ex parte orders, or notices of appeal. This holding serves as a critical procedural reminder: If a clerk refuses to perform a ministerial duty, the practitioner cannot bypass the trial court. A direct petition to the Court of Appeals will be dismissed unless the clerk’s inaction specifically threatens an existing appeal; otherwise, the remedy must first be sought in the trial court via a motion to compel, followed by a mandamus against the trial judge if relief is denied.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The Relators, Adnan Umair Janjua and Uzma Janjua, filed an original proceeding in the Dallas Court of Appeals seeking a writ of mandamus directed at the Collin County Clerk. The Relators requested the appellate court to issue an order compelling the clerk to file certain documents that had apparently been rejected or omitted from the record. The opinion does not detail the nature of the underlying litigation in Collin County, focusing instead on the Relators’ attempt to invoke the appellate court’s original jurisdiction to oversee the ministerial functions of a county official.
Issues Decided
Whether a Texas Court of Appeals has the jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a county clerk when the relator has not demonstrated that the requested relief is necessary to protect or enforce the court’s appellate jurisdiction.
Rules Applied
The court applied Texas Government Code § 22.221, which governs the writ power of the Courts of Appeals. Under § 22.221(b), the court’s mandamus power is generally limited to writs against judges of district or statutory county courts within their district. While § 22.221(a) allows the court to issue writs to “enforce the jurisdiction of the court,” this applies to non-judicial officers (like clerks) only when their actions—or lack thereof—interfere with the appellate court’s ability to hear a pending appeal.
Application
The Court of Appeals engaged in a strict jurisdictional analysis. It noted that its authority to issue extraordinary writs is not plenary but is strictly defined by statute. Because a county clerk is not a judge of a district or statutory county court, the clerk does not fall under the primary grant of mandamus jurisdiction in § 22.221(b). Consequently, for the Court of Appeals to have power over the clerk, the Relators had to show that the clerk’s refusal to file the documents was actively obstructing the court’s jurisdiction over a specific, pending appellate matter. The Relators failed to provide any evidence or argument that the issuance of the writ was necessary to preserve the court’s appellate reach. Without that jurisdictional “hook,” the court was powerless to act.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that it lacked jurisdiction to issue the requested writ of mandamus against the county clerk. The court emphasized that its power over non-judicial officers is contingent upon the necessity of protecting its own jurisdiction.
Because the Relators did not demonstrate that the requested relief was necessary to enforce the court’s appellate jurisdiction, the proceeding was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
Practical Application
For the family law practitioner, this case defines the “order of operations” for clerk-related disputes. If a clerk in a divorce or SAPCR proceeding refuses to file a document—perhaps citing a local rule or a perceived deficiency in the filing—the attorney should avoid the temptation to seek an immediate “fix” from the Court of Appeals. Instead, the practitioner should file a motion in the trial court requesting the judge to direct the clerk to file the instrument. If the trial judge refuses to issue that order, the practitioner then files a mandamus in the Court of Appeals naming the judge as the respondent and the clerk’s inaction as the underlying abuse of discretion.
Checklists
Navigating County Clerk Filing Disputes
- Verify Ministerial Duty: Ensure the document in question is one the clerk has a clear legal duty to file under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
- Establish a Record: Obtain written evidence of the clerk’s refusal to file the document (e.g., a “rejection” notice from the e-filing system).
- Assess Jurisdictional Path: Determine if there is a pending appeal. If yes, analyze whether the clerk’s refusal prevents the record from being completed (the § 22.221(a) exception).
- Exhaust Trial Court Remedies: File a Motion to Compel or a Motion to Enter Order in the trial court before considering appellate intervention.
Avoiding Jurisdictional Dismissal in Mandamus
- Identify the Correct Respondent: Ensure the respondent is a person over whom the Court of Appeals has statutory authority (usually a judge).
- Cite the Specific Subsection: If suing a clerk, explicitly plead facts showing how the clerk’s action thwarts the COA’s jurisdiction over a pending appeal.
- Check the Government Code: Always verify the latest amendments to Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221 regarding which courts and officials are currently subject to the COA’s writ power.
Citation
In re Janjua, No. 05-26-00133-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 5, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling is a potent weapon for a respondent in a high-conflict custody or property case. If an opposing counsel, in a moment of procedural haste or frustration, files an original proceeding to force a clerk to accept a “late” filing or a document the clerk has rejected (such as a supersedeas bond or an inventory), this case provides the blueprint for a swift Motion to Dismiss. By forcing the opponent back down to the trial court, you gain valuable time and force them to burn resources on a procedural “do-over” before the trial judge. It underscores a strategic reality: the Court of Appeals will not do the trial court’s administrative work, and a practitioner’s failure to recognize this hierarchy can result in a quick, and potentially costly, dismissal.
~~641e316b-8c62-4dec-b0a9-d06ba7f9830c~~
Share this content:
