CROSSOVER: Mandamus Means a Sworn Record: In re Talley’s Rule 52 Checklist for Texas Family-Law Relators

In re William Michael Talley, 06-26-00108-CV, September 30, 2026.

On appeal from Trial court (underlying lawsuit); no lower appellate court identified

Synopsis

A Texas mandamus relator must include the certification required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(k) and must authenticate material record documents as required by Rules 52.3(l) and 52.7(a)(1). An unsworn declaration that merely states the filing is true and correct does not authenticate attached documents unless it directly and unequivocally establishes personal knowledge and states that the copies are true and correct copies of the originals; neither pro se nor inmate status excuses noncompliance.

Relevance to Family Law

Mandamus is a recurring feature of Texas divorce, custody, and marital-property litigation, particularly when a trial court allegedly has failed to rule, has entered a temporary order affecting conservatorship or possession, has compelled disclosure of privileged material, or has denied another form of relief for which ordinary appeal may be inadequate. In re Talley underscores that the merits of such a complaint will not be reached unless the relator supplies a properly certified petition, an authenticated record, proof that the trial court was asked to act, and proper service on the respondent and all real parties in interest. Family-law counsel should treat Rule 52 compliance as an element of the requested relief rather than as a curable filing formality.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

William Michael Talley, an incarcerated pro se litigant, filed an original mandamus proceeding arising from a lawsuit against family members concerning allegedly stolen land. In the trial court, Talley had filed a motion to recuse the trial judge, a motion to change venue, and other motions. He asked the Sixth Court of Appeals to recuse the trial judge and reassign the case because the judge allegedly had not ruled on the pending motions.

Talley’s certificate of service identified only the clerk of the court of appeals. It did not show service on the respondent trial judge or the real parties in interest.

The petition also contained an unsworn declaration identifying Talley, his date of birth, his inmate number, his place of incarceration, and a general declaration under penalty of perjury that “the foregoing is true and correct.” Although the declaration tracked the form contemplated by Section 132.001(e) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code for an incarcerated declarant, it did not contain the specific certification required by Rule 52.3(k). It also did not state, based on Talley’s personal knowledge, that the documents attached to the petition were true and correct copies of the originals. The exhibits were not otherwise certified or sworn.

Issues Decided

• Whether Talley complied with Rule 52.7(c) by serving the mandamus petition and record only on the appellate clerk, rather than on the respondent judge and the real parties in interest.

• Whether a general unsworn declaration substantially tracking Section 132.001(e) satisfied the petition-certification requirement of Rule 52.3(k).

• Whether the declaration authenticated the exhibits as sworn copies for purposes of Rules 52.3(l)(1)(B) and 52.7(a)(1).

• Whether Talley’s pro se and incarcerated status excused compliance with the procedural requirements governing mandamus proceedings.

• Whether the court of appeals could order the trial judge’s recusal and transfer the underlying case to another judge through the requested mandamus relief.

Rules Applied

• Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.2: The parties to an original proceeding include the respondent and every real party in interest.

• Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(c): The relator must serve the mandamus record with the petition on all parties.

• Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(k): The relator must certify that the relator has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record.

• Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3(l)(1)(B) and 52.7(a)(1): The appendix and record must contain certified or sworn copies of the material orders and documents from the underlying proceeding.

• Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 132.001(e): An incarcerated person may use an unsworn declaration containing the statutorily prescribed identifying information and declaration under penalty of perjury. Compliance with that statute, however, does not by itself satisfy every distinct certification and authentication requirement imposed by Rule 52.

• Authentication through personal knowledge: Relying on In re Henderson, In re Butler, and In re Garrett, the court explained that an affidavit or declaration used to authenticate attached documents must directly and unequivocally show personal knowledge and state that the attached copies are true and correct copies of the originals.

• Mandamus to obtain a ruling: Under In re Henry, a relator seeking to compel a ruling must establish that the trial court had a legal duty to rule, was asked to rule, and failed or refused to do so within a reasonable time.

• Limits on directing the trial court’s decision: Under In re Blakeney, an appellate court may direct a trial court to make a decision when the applicable requirements are met, but it ordinarily may not direct what that decision must be.

• Review of recusal rulings: Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a(j)(1)(A) provides that an order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed for abuse of discretion on appeal from the final judgment.

• Uniform application of procedural rules: Citing Wheeler v. Green, Barnes v. State, In re Gomez, and In re Hall, the court held that pro se or incarcerated status does not excuse failure to provide a procedurally sufficient mandamus petition and record.

Application

The court first examined service. Talley’s certificate showed service only on the appellate clerk, even though the respondent trial judge and the real parties in interest were parties to the original proceeding. The filing therefore did not comply with Rule 52.7(c).

The court then addressed the distinction between a general unsworn declaration and the certification specifically required in a mandamus petition. Talley declared under penalty of perjury that “the foregoing” was true and correct, but he did not certify that he had reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement was supported by competent evidence in the appendix or record. The declaration therefore did not satisfy Rule 52.3(k).

The same declaration also failed to authenticate Talley’s exhibits. It did not affirmatively establish that Talley had personal knowledge of the documents or state that the attached documents were true and correct copies of the originals. Because the documents were not clerk-certified and were not attached to a properly prepared affidavit or declaration, they did not constitute certified or sworn copies under Rules 52.3(l)(1)(B) and 52.7(a)(1).

These deficiencies were consequential because an appellate court does not independently assemble the record in an original proceeding. The relator bears the burden of supplying authenticated documents sufficient to establish each fact necessary for mandamus relief. Without a proper record, the court could not determine whether the trial court had been asked to rule, whether the motions remained pending, or whether a reasonable time for ruling had elapsed.

Finally, the requested remedy exceeded the permissible scope of the mandamus proceeding as framed. Even if Talley had supplied a procedurally sufficient petition and record, an appellate court’s authority to compel a trial court to rule does not ordinarily permit the appellate court to dictate that the ruling must be recusal. The court also noted Rule 18a(j)(1)(A)’s provision for review of an order denying recusal on appeal from a final judgment.

Holding

The court held that Talley failed to comply with Rule 52.7(c) because he did not serve the respondent judge and the real parties in interest with the petition and mandamus record.

The court held that Talley’s unsworn declaration did not satisfy Rule 52.3(k). A general statement that the foregoing is true and correct is not a substitute for the rule’s express certification that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence in the appendix or record.

The court further held that Talley did not provide the certified or sworn copies required by Rules 52.3(l)(1)(B) and 52.7(a)(1). His declaration did not directly and unequivocally establish personal knowledge or state that the attached documents were true and correct copies of the originals.

The court held that Talley’s pro se and inmate status did not excuse these procedural failures. Because the relator must assemble the mandamus record, strict authentication requirements apply to preserve the record’s integrity.

The court also concluded that it could not grant the requested order directing the trial judge’s recusal and reassignment of the case. It therefore denied the petition for writ of mandamus.

Practical Application

In family-law litigation, counsel should build the mandamus record before drafting the petition. If the requested relief concerns a trial court’s failure to rule, the record should ordinarily establish the filing date of the motion, presentment to the trial court, requests for a setting or ruling, any hearings or communications reflecting the court’s awareness of the motion, the time elapsed, and circumstances relevant to whether that period was reasonable. Merely attaching a file-stamped motion will not necessarily prove that the judge was asked to rule.

When challenging a temporary order, discovery ruling, privilege determination, transfer ruling, or other interlocutory decision, obtain certified copies from the district clerk whenever practicable. If certified copies are unavailable, use a properly executed affidavit or unsworn declaration that affirmatively states the declarant’s personal knowledge and identifies the attached documents as true and correct copies of the originals.

Counsel should keep the Rule 52.3(k) certification distinct from record authentication. One statement does not necessarily perform both functions. The petition needs the rule-specific certification concerning factual support, while the record needs certified or properly sworn copies of each material document.

Requests for relief also must be framed within the limits of mandamus jurisdiction. A relator may, when the legal standards are satisfied, seek an order requiring the trial court to perform a ministerial duty such as considering and ruling on a properly presented motion. The relator generally should not ask the appellate court to dictate the substance of a discretionary ruling.

Recusal questions require particular care. Counsel should follow Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a, preserve the trial-court record, identify the ruling actually subject to review, and account for Rule 18a(j)’s prescribed review mechanism. A request to compel a ruling is analytically different from a request directing that recusal be granted.

Checklists

Certify the Mandamus Petition

• Include the certification required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(k).
• State that counsel or the relator has reviewed the petition.
• State that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record.
• Confirm that every factual assertion has a record citation.
• Remove factual assertions that cannot be supported by the authenticated record.
• Do not rely on a general verification or “true and correct” declaration as a substitute for the Rule 52.3(k) certification.

Authenticate the Mandamus Record

• Obtain clerk-certified copies of material trial-court documents whenever possible.
• Include a certified or sworn copy of the order under review.
• Include certified or sworn copies of all documents material to the requested relief.
• If using an affidavit or unsworn declaration, affirmatively state that it is based on personal knowledge.
• State directly that each identified attachment is a true and correct copy of the original.
• Identify the attachments clearly by exhibit number, title, and date.
• Ensure that the affidavit or declaration is signed and otherwise complies with the applicable formal requirements.
• Do not assume that attaching a document to the petition makes it part of a competent mandamus record.

Prove a Failure to Rule

• Include a file-stamped, certified, or sworn copy of the pending motion.
• Establish when the motion was filed.
• Establish that the motion was brought to the trial court’s attention.
• Include written requests for a hearing or ruling.
• Include docket entries, hearing notices, correspondence, or transcripts showing presentment.
• Establish how long the motion has remained pending.
• Include facts relevant to whether the elapsed time is unreasonable under the circumstances.
• Identify the ministerial act sought without asking the appellate court to dictate a discretionary result.

Serve Every Required Party

• Identify the respondent trial judge.
• Identify every real party in interest.
• Serve the petition and mandamus record on all parties at the same time.
• Verify that the certificate of service lists the respondent and each real party in interest.
• State the date and method of service.
• Confirm compliance with applicable electronic-filing and service requirements.
• Do not list only the clerk of the court of appeals.

Prepare a Family-Law Mandamus Record

• Include the live pleadings relevant to the dispute.
• Include the motion, response, reply, and supporting evidence presented below.
• Include the reporter’s record of any material hearing.
• Include the challenged temporary, discovery, transfer, enforcement, or procedural order.
• Include documents establishing the immediate effect of the ruling when relevant to the absence of an adequate appellate remedy.
• Protect sensitive information through redaction, sealing procedures, or other measures authorized by rule or statute.
• Confirm that confidential records involving children are transmitted and filed in compliance with governing requirements.
• Explain why an ordinary appeal would not provide an adequate remedy.

Frame the Requested Relief

• State the precise ministerial duty the trial court allegedly failed to perform.
• Distinguish a request to compel a ruling from a request to compel a particular ruling.
• Tie each requested form of relief to the governing rule or authority.
• Address both prerequisites for mandamus: a clear abuse of discretion or violation of duty and the absence of an adequate appellate remedy.
• If recusal is involved, analyze Rule 18a’s procedures and limitations separately.
• Request only relief the court of appeals has authority to grant.

Citation

In re William Michael Talley, No. 06-26-00108-CV, slip op. (Tex. App.—Texarkana Sept. 30, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion.

Family Law Crossover

The procedural crossover is Rule 52’s requirement that a mandamus petition be supported by a self-contained, authenticated record assembled by the relator. In a Texas family-law case, the issue may arise when a party seeks mandamus relief concerning temporary conservatorship orders, possession schedules, privileged mental-health records, discovery sanctions, transfer proceedings, enforcement matters, or a trial court’s failure to rule on a time-sensitive motion.

The petition certification and record authentication serve different purposes. Rule 52.3(k) requires the relator to certify that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence in the appendix or record. Rules 52.3(l)(1)(B) and 52.7(a)(1), meanwhile, require certified or sworn copies of the material orders and documents. Compliance with one requirement does not eliminate the other.

A family-law relator using an unsworn declaration should therefore include a direct personal-knowledge statement and identify the attached documents as true and correct copies of the originals. The relator also must serve the respondent judge and every real party in interest. If the complaint is delay in ruling, the authenticated record must establish not only that the motion was filed, but also that the trial court was asked to rule and failed to do so within a reasonable time. Without that record, the appellate court cannot evaluate the asserted ministerial duty or the relator’s entitlement to extraordinary relief.

~~297121d7-1a15-452f-a4c8-bbb394ce2848~~