The ‘Black Hole’ Motion: Why Filing with the Clerk Won’t Support a Mandamus Against a Silent Family Court Judge
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Tijerina, 13-26-00131-CR, February 06, 2026.
On appeal from County Court at Law No. 4 of Hidalgo County
Synopsis
To secure mandamus relief for a trial court’s failure to rule on a pending motion, a relator must provide a record demonstrating that the trial court was actually aware of the filing and was specifically asked to rule. The Thirteenth Court of Appeals clarifies that merely filing a document with the clerk does not satisfy the requirement of “presentment” or impute knowledge of the filing to the trial court.
Relevance to Family Law
In the environment of Texas family law—where temporary orders, motions for enforcement, and emergency custody stays often linger on a judge’s desk—practitioners frequently mistake a “file-stamp” for “notice.” This ruling serves as a stark reminder that the ministerial duty to rule is not triggered by the clerk’s intake system. For family litigators, this means that silence from the bench following a motion to modify or a motion for contempt cannot be challenged via mandamus unless the practitioner has created a paper trail showing the judge was personally made aware of the motion and requested to take action. Without this, your motion remains in a jurisdictional “black hole.”
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Relator Jose Raquel Lerma, acting pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus across four consolidated criminal cause numbers. He alleged that the judge of the County Court at Law No. 4 of Hidalgo County failed to rule on his “Notice of Place of Imprisonment and Speedy Trial Demand.” While the motions were presumably filed within the trial court’s records, the mandamus record provided to the Court of Appeals was sparse. Crucially, the record failed to contain evidence that the Relator had taken steps beyond the initial filing to ensure the trial judge was aware of the motion or that a specific request for a ruling had been made and subsequently ignored.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether a relator is entitled to mandamus relief for a trial court’s failure to rule on a motion when the record fails to show the trial court received, was aware of, or was asked to rule on the filing.
Rules Applied
The Court applied the well-settled standard for mandamus relief in criminal and civil matters, requiring a relator to establish that the act sought to be compelled is a ministerial duty and that no adequate remedy at law exists. Specifically, for a “failure to rule” claim, the Court relied on the three-prong test: (1) the trial court had a legal duty to rule; (2) the court was asked to rule; and (3) the court failed or refused to do so within a reasonable time. The Court cited In re Blakeney and In re Villarreal to emphasize that the trial court must have actual awareness of the motion. Finally, the Court applied the rule that filing with a district or county clerk does not equate to presentment to the judge.
Application
The Court’s analysis centered on the Relator’s failure to meet the evidentiary burden inherent in an original proceeding. Chief Justice Tijerina noted that while a trial court has a ministerial duty to rule within a reasonable time, that duty is only activated once the motion is “submitted to the court for a ruling.” The Relator’s record consisted of the filings themselves but lacked any correspondence, hearing requests, or “Notice of Presentment” that would prove the judge knew the motions existed. The Court reasoned that because the clerk’s knowledge is not imputed to the judge, the judge cannot be said to have “failed” to perform a duty they were never asked to perform. Consequently, without evidence of a request for a ruling and the subsequent passage of a reasonable amount of time, the Relator could not establish a clear right to the extraordinary relief of mandamus.
Holding
The Court denied the petition for writ of mandamus. The holding reaffirms that a relator bears the absolute burden to provide a record showing that the trial court was specifically asked to rule and that the motion was actually brought to the judge’s attention.
The Court further held that the mere act of filing a document with the clerk is insufficient to establish the trial court’s awareness or to trigger the “reasonable time” clock for a mandatory ruling.
Practical Application
For family law practitioners, this case highlights the necessity of “the nudge.” If a motion for temporary orders or a motion to compel discovery is sitting idle, you must do more than check the e-filing portal. You should file a formal “Request for Ruling” or a “Notice of Presentment,” and ensure a copy is delivered to the court coordinator. If the judge still refuses to rule, your mandamus record must include these follow-up efforts to prove the judge was aware of the motion and chose to remain silent.
Checklists
Perfecting Presentment for Mandamus
- File the primary motion with the clerk.
- Draft and file a formal “Request for Ruling” or “Motion to Set Hearing.”
- Send a courtesy copy of the motion and the request for ruling directly to the Court Coordinator.
- Maintain a record of all correspondence with the court staff regarding the status of the motion.
- If the court does not hold a hearing, file a “Notice of Intent to Seek Mandamus” to provide one final opportunity for a ruling.
Building the Mandamus Record
- Include the file-stamped copy of the original motion.
- Include the file-stamped copy of the request for a ruling.
- Include an affidavit from counsel or staff confirming the date and method by which the motion was brought to the judge’s attention (the “presentment”).
- Include any orders or docket entries showing that the court has taken no action.
- Ensure the record includes a copy of the trial court’s docket sheet to demonstrate the passage of time.
Citation
In re Jose Raquel Lerma, Nos. 13-26-00129-CR, 13-26-00130-CR, 13-26-00131-CR, 13-26-00132-CR, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Feb. 6, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling is a powerful defensive tool in divorce and custody litigation. When an opposing party threatens mandamus because a judge hasn’t signed a QDRO or ruled on a motion for attorney’s fees, the first line of defense is the record of presentment. If the movant merely filed the motion and waited, they have not exhausted their remedies or triggered the court’s ministerial duty. Strategically, you can weaponize this “black hole” by ensuring you do not waive the requirement of presentment. If the trial court is leaning against you, the absence of a formal request for a ruling by your opponent prevents them from seeking immediate appellate intervention, buying your client valuable time and potentially forcing the opponent to start the clock over with a proper request.
~~e5c4aa7c-a1a4-494f-be42-aaba25937830~~
Share this content:
