In re Gonzalez, 08-26-00089-CV, February 18, 2026.
Synopsis
To obtain mandamus relief for a trial court’s failure to rule, a relator must provide a record establishing that a specific motion was properly filed, remained pending for an unreasonable time, and that the trial court refused to rule despite an explicit request. In this proceeding, the Eighth Court of Appeals denied relief because the relator relied on vague allegations of “safety-critical matters” and “deadline-trap” scheduling without identifying specific pending motions or documenting a clear refusal to act by the trial court.
Relevance to Family Law
In high-conflict custody and matrimonial litigation, practitioners frequently encounter “pocket denials”—situations where a trial court effectively kills a request for relief by simply refusing to set it for a hearing or issue a ruling. While the urge to seek immediate appellate intervention is strong when child safety or asset dissipation is at stake, this case reaffirms that the court of appeals will not intervene based on generalized grievances. For the family law litigator, this means that “safety-critical” labels are no substitute for a meticulous administrative record. You must transition from informal emails with court coordinators to formal, filed requests for rulings and hearings to ripen an abuse of discretion claim for mandamus purposes.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Relator Victor Gonzalez filed an original proceeding in mandamus against the Honorable Kirsten B. Cohoon, presiding over a matter in the 383rd Judicial District Court of El Paso County. Gonzalez’s primary complaint centered on the trial court’s alleged “continuing failure to set and rule” on what he termed “safety-critical matters.” He argued that the court was enforcing a compressed scheduling order with imminent deadlines and a special trial setting in March 2026, creating a “deadline-trap posture” that would lead to irreparable prejudice and the risk of waiver. While Gonzalez had filed documents shortly before seeking mandamus relief—including requests to postpone the trial and complaints regarding the lack of rulings—the record lacked evidence of any specific, substantive motions that the trial court had actually been asked to rule upon and subsequently refused.
Issues Decided
The central issue was whether the relator established a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court sufficient to warrant mandamus relief. Specifically, the court examined whether a general allegation of failure to rule on unspecified “safety-critical” issues meets the evidentiary burden required to compel a trial court to act.
Rules Applied
The court applied the well-established two-prong test for mandamus: the relator must show a clear abuse of discretion and the lack of an adequate remedy by appeal. Specifically regarding the failure to rule, the court relied on the three-part test from In re Shredder Co. L.L.C.: (1) the motion was properly filed and pending for a reasonable time; (2) the relator requested a ruling; and (3) the trial court refused to rule. The court further noted that the “reasonableness” of the time elapsed is a fact-dependent inquiry considering the court’s docket, the complexity of the issues, and the imminence of trial settings.
Application
The El Paso Court of Appeals found that Gonzalez’s petition failed on almost every evidentiary front required for the “failure to rule” analysis. The legal story here is one of procedural insufficiency; despite the relator’s use of high-stakes terminology like “safety-critical” and “irreparable prejudice,” the appellate record was a vacuum. The court observed that Gonzalez did not identify which specific substantive motions were actually pending, nor did he provide a timeline of the steps he took to secure a hearing. The court noted that a trial court has inherent power to control its own docket, and an appellate court cannot find an abuse of that power unless the relator demonstrates that the trial court was made aware of the need to rule and affirmatively declined to do so. Because Gonzalez’s filings—both at the trial and appellate levels—remained vague and lacked specificity regarding the relief sought, he could not demonstrate that the trial court’s inaction was an abuse of discretion rather than a standard exercise of docket management.
Holding
The Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus and the motion for emergency relief. The court held that the relator failed to meet the burden of establishing that the trial court abused its discretion because he did not provide a record showing a specific motion was filed, a ruling was requested, and the court refused to act.
The court further held that conclusory allegations regarding trial settings and “deadline traps” are insufficient to establish irreparable harm or waiver risk in the absence of a clearly identified legal or factual issue that the trial court was required to resolve.
Practical Application
This opinion is a cautionary tale for practitioners dealing with “unresponsive” courts. To successfully mandamus a judge for failing to rule in a family law matter, you must move beyond the “emergency” rhetoric and satisfy the Shredder Co. factors. If you are facing a “deadline trap,” you must file a specific motion (e.g., a Motion for Continuance or a Motion for Temporary Orders), follow it with a written “Request for Ruling,” and if the court remains silent, request a hearing on the record specifically to address the court’s refusal to rule. Vague complaints about the “posture” of the case will not survive the scrutiny of the court of appeals.
Checklists
Perfecting the Record for a “Failure to Rule” Mandamus
- Confirm the underlying substantive motion (e.g., Motion for Enforcement, Temporary Orders) is properly filed and served.
- Allow a “reasonable” time to pass based on the complexity of the motion and the imminence of trial.
- File a formal “Request for Ruling” or “Request for Hearing” and ensure it is served on all parties and brought to the judge’s attention.
- Document all attempts to set the matter with the court coordinator, preferably in writing.
- If a hearing is held, ensure the court’s refusal to rule is captured in the reporter’s record.
Avoiding Vagueness in Emergency Petitions
- Identify every pending motion by its exact title and date of filing.
- Explicitly define what the “safety-critical” issues are (e.g., “The court has failed to rule on a Motion for Supervised Visitation despite evidence of drug use”).
- Detail the specific prejudice: identify exactly which deadlines will cause a waiver of which rights.
- Provide a clear chronology of every request made to the trial court to resolve the pending issues.
Citation
In re Gonzalez, No. 08-26-00089-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—El Paso Feb. 18, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~4e543a10-e49c-43df-8d80-4a5283463f9c~~
Share this content: