In re Tracy Hoots, 12-26-00105-CV, April 30, 2026.
On appeal from 392nd District Court of Henderson County, Texas
Synopsis
A relator is not entitled to mandamus relief where the petition lacks a Rule 52 appendix, omits the Rule 52.7 mandamus record, and fails to identify a specific trial-court ruling or refusal to act. In In re Tracy Hoots, the Tyler Court of Appeals denied mandamus because the pro se relator supplied only unsworn factual assertions, no certified or sworn material documents, no adequate record, and no clearly reviewable trial-court action showing an abuse of discretion.
Relevance to Family Law
This opinion matters in family-law practice because mandamus is frequently used to challenge emergency child-removal rulings, temporary orders, discovery rulings, jurisdictional determinations, recusal issues, and enforcement-related procedural errors that may evade meaningful appellate review. The case is a straightforward reminder that even in emotionally charged custody litigation—especially where a parent alleges due-process violations or judicial conflict—extraordinary relief still turns on disciplined appellate preservation: identify the exact order or refusal to rule, supply the certified or sworn papers, and build a Rule 52.7 record that allows the court of appeals to verify a clear abuse of discretion.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The relator, proceeding pro se, sought mandamus relief against the judge of the 392nd District Court in Henderson County in a family-law matter. Her petition asserted two broad complaints: first, that her children had been removed without a warrant or court order in violation of due process; and second, that the trial judge allegedly had a conflict of interest.
The court of appeals notified the relator that her original petition failed to comply with multiple provisions of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52, including the requirements governing the contents of the petition, the appendix, and the mandamus record. The clerk warned that the proceeding would be referred for dismissal unless she filed an amended petition and record by the stated deadline.
The relator did file an amended petition and appendix. But the amended filing still did not cure the defects that mattered most. The appendix contained only an unsworn list of facts, not certified or sworn copies of any complained-of order or any document showing the matter complained of. She also failed to provide the record required by Rule 52.7. Compounding the problem, the petition did not identify any specific trial-court order, ruling, refusal to rule, or recusal-related action that could actually be reviewed by mandamus.
Issues Decided
- Whether a relator is entitled to mandamus relief when the appendix does not contain certified or sworn copies of the order complained of or other material documents, as required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(k)(1).
- Whether mandamus relief can be granted when the relator fails to file a sufficient mandamus record under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7.
- Whether a mandamus petition is viable when it does not identify a specific trial-court order, ruling, or failure to act demonstrating a clear abuse of discretion.
Rules Applied
The court relied primarily on the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure governing original proceedings.
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3 requires a mandamus petition to include specified components and, under Rule 52.3(k)(1), an appendix containing a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of.
- Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7 requires the relator to file a mandamus record, including:
- a certified or sworn copy of every material document filed in the underlying proceeding, and
- a properly authenticated transcript of relevant testimony, including exhibits, or a statement that no testimony was adduced.
- The court reiterated that the relator bears the burden to present a record sufficient to establish entitlement to extraordinary relief.
- The opinion also cited authority confirming that pro se litigants are held to the same procedural standards as licensed attorneys.
- On the substantive mandamus standard, the court referenced the Texas Supreme Court’s articulation that mandamus issues only upon a clear abuse of discretion.
The authorities cited by the court included In re Guerrero, No. 12-21-00100-CR, 2021 WL 3412558 (Tex. App.—Tyler Aug. 4, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re Daisy, No. 12-13-00266-CR, 2014 WL 5577068 (Tex. App.—Tyler Aug. 29, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re McCreary, No. 12-15-00067-CR, 2015 WL 1395783 (Tex. App.—Tyler Mar. 25, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); and In re State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 712 S.W.3d 53, 58–59 (Tex. 2025).
Application
The court’s reasoning was procedural, but not merely technical. It began from the settled premise that a relator seeking extraordinary relief must bring forward the material necessary to prove entitlement to that relief. Here, the relator did not do so, despite being expressly notified of the defects and given an opportunity to amend.
On the appendix requirement, the court found that the relator’s submission consisted only of unsworn factual assertions. That is not an appendix within the meaning of Rule 52.3(k)(1). The point of the rule is to permit the court to evaluate an actual judicial act—or at minimum, an authenticated document showing the complained-of matter—not a party’s unsupported narrative of events. Without a certified or sworn copy of an order, motion, docket entry, notice, or comparable filing, the court had nothing competent to review.
The Rule 52.7 failure was equally fatal. Mandamus is record-driven. The appellate court cannot infer what happened below, reconstruct hearings from accusation, or speculate about the procedural posture of a removal complaint or conflict allegation. A relator must provide the material filings and any relevant hearing record, or affirmatively state that no testimony was taken. Because no compliant record was supplied, the court held that it could not determine whether relief was warranted.
The opinion’s footnote sharpened the point: the missing documents may have reflected a deeper problem, namely that the petition did not identify any actual trial-court order or omission subject to mandamus review. Alleging that children were removed without lawful process is not, by itself, the same as identifying a specific district-court ruling that was arbitrary, unreasonable, or made without reference to guiding principles. Likewise, asserting a judicial conflict of interest is not enough unless the petition ties that complaint to a particular order, a refusal to recuse, or some identifiable action by the trial court. In short, the petition failed both procedurally and conceptually.
Holding
The court held that mandamus relief was unavailable because the relator failed to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(k)(1). Her appendix did not include certified or sworn copies of any order complained of or any other document showing the matter complained of. Instead, it contained only unsworn factual statements, which are insufficient to satisfy the rule.
The court also held that the relator failed to comply with Rule 52.7 because she did not provide a mandamus record containing the material underlying documents and any properly authenticated testimony or a statement that no testimony was adduced. Without that record, the court could not assess whether she had established a right to extraordinary relief.
Finally, the court made clear that the petition did not identify a specific order or action by the trial court that could support mandamus review. As a result, the relator failed to demonstrate any clear abuse of discretion by the respondent judge. The petition was therefore denied.
Practical Application
For Texas family-law litigators, this case is a useful procedural warning shot. Family cases generate recurring mandamus opportunities, but many petitions fail before the court ever reaches the merits. That is especially true in emergency and temporary-order contexts, where counsel may move quickly and assume the equities will carry the day. They will not.
In SAPCR and modification litigation, if you intend to challenge a child-removal-related ruling, emergency temporary orders, denial of a hearing, refusal to rule on return-of-child requests, or a recusal issue, begin by framing the petition around a discrete judicial act. Identify the order signed, the motion denied, the hearing held, the request refused, or the recusal procedure mishandled. If no written order exists, the petition must still anchor the complaint to a reviewable action or refusal to act and support that contention with a competent record.
The same lesson applies in divorce litigation. Whether the issue is a temporary injunction, property preservation order, discovery sanction, receiver appointment, compelled disclosure, or denial of a plea to the jurisdiction in a conservatorship-adjacent dispute, the mandamus petition must be built from authenticated documents. A persuasive statement of unfairness is not a substitute for a sworn appendix and a Rule 52.7 record.
Practically, this case should also influence how family lawyers handle trial-court preservation. If you anticipate possible mandamus, make sure the record is being created in real time. Obtain signed orders. File written motions and written objections. Request hearings on the record. Secure court-reporter transcription or, if no testimony is taken, make that clear in the petition. If the issue concerns recusal or disqualification, follow the recusal rules meticulously and create a paper trail showing the motion, referral, ruling, or refusal.
For appellate specialists working with trial counsel, Hoots reinforces a simple truth: many family-law mandamus losses are avoidable. The problem is often not the legal theory; it is the failure to package the issue in a form the court can decide.
Checklists
Mandamus Petition Foundation
- Identify the exact trial-court order, ruling, or refusal to act being challenged
- State the date the order was signed or the date of the complained-of hearing or refusal
- Explain why mandamus is the proper vehicle rather than ordinary appeal
- Articulate the abuse-of-discretion theory tied to a specific judicial act
- Address adequacy of appellate remedy where required
Rule 52.3 Appendix Compliance
- Include a certified or sworn copy of the order complained of
- If there is no formal order, include certified or sworn documents showing the matter complained of
- Ensure affidavits or verifications are properly executed
- Do not rely on unsworn factual summaries or argument as a substitute for appendix materials
- Confirm the appendix corresponds to the issues actually presented in the petition
Rule 52.7 Record Assembly
- File a certified or sworn copy of every material document filed in the underlying proceeding
- Include the operative pleadings, motions, responses, and exhibits
- Include the relevant reporter’s record, with authentication
- If no testimony was adduced, say so expressly
- Include any docket sheet, notice of hearing, or correspondence necessary to establish context
- Verify that the record supports every factual assertion made in the petition
Family-Law Specific Preservation
- Obtain signed temporary orders, emergency orders, and enforcement orders whenever possible
- Make written requests for relief rather than relying solely on oral presentations
- Request a ruling on the record
- If the court refuses to rule, document the refusal through the hearing transcript or written submission
- In removal or emergency-custody disputes, preserve the statutory and due-process objections expressly
- In recusal matters, file the motion in proper form and preserve the response, referral, and ruling history
Pre-Filing Quality Control
- Cross-check every factual statement in the petition against a record cite
- Confirm that all cited documents are included in the appendix or record
- Verify compliance with all content requirements under Rule 52.3
- Confirm certificate, service, and formatting compliance
- Ask whether the petition identifies a reviewable judicial action, not just a grievance
- Evaluate whether the requested relief matches the order or conduct actually challenged
Citation
In re Tracy Hoots, No. 12-26-00105-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Tyler Apr. 30, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~e3f29a8f-645e-4246-accc-5f1c5df42b61~~
Share this content: