Don’t Sue the Clerk: Navigating Mandamus Jurisdictional Traps in Family Law Litigation
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam, 14-26-00067-CR, January 27, 2026.
Synopsis
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals dismissed a petition for writ of mandamus directed at a county clerk, affirming that its original jurisdiction is strictly confined to the judicial officers enumerated in the Texas Government Code. Because the relator failed to demonstrate that the requested relief was necessary to enforce the court’s own appellate jurisdiction, the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the petition.
Relevance to Family Law
In high-stakes family law litigation—particularly in cases involving the delayed issuance of citations, the withholding of the clerk’s record, or disputes over the release of funds from the registry—practitioners often feel the urge to seek immediate appellate intervention against a recalcitrant clerk. This case serves as a critical reminder of the “jurisdictional gap” in the Texas Courts of Appeals. While the court has original jurisdiction over judges (including Family Code Chapter 201 associate judges), it generally lacks the power to supervise clerks. Unless the clerk’s inaction specifically blocks the Court of Appeals from exercising its own jurisdiction, a petition filed at the appellate level will be dismissed, wasting precious time and client resources.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Relator Marcus Tyrone Grant filed an original proceeding seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Waller County Clerk to perform specific actions within an underlying criminal proceeding in the County Court at Law No. 2. The petition did not seek relief against the presiding judge, but rather focused exclusively on the ministerial or administrative conduct of the county clerk. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals was required to determine, sua sponte, whether it possessed the requisite subject-matter jurisdiction to issue such an order to a non-judicial official.
Issues Decided
Whether a Texas Court of Appeals has original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a county clerk when the relator fails to show that the writ is necessary to enforce the court’s appellate jurisdiction.
Rules Applied
The court’s analysis centered on Texas Government Code § 22.221. Under subsections (b) and (c), the court’s mandamus authority is limited to district judges, statutory county judges, statutory probate judges, and associate judges appointed under Chapter 201 of the Texas Family Code within the court’s district. Additionally, § 22.221(a) provides “ancillary” jurisdiction, allowing the court to issue writs necessary to enforce its own jurisdiction. The court also relied on In re Victorian, which establishes that district or county clerks are outside the court’s general mandamus reach.
Application
The court began by emphasizing that its jurisdiction is purely a creature of the Texas Constitution and statute. In reviewing Texas Government Code § 22.221, the court noted that the legislature provided a specific list of respondents subject to the court’s original jurisdiction. County clerks are not on that list. Consequently, the only remaining avenue for the Relator was to invoke the court’s “protect-the-jurisdiction” power under § 22.221(a). To do so, a Relator must prove that the clerk’s failure to act effectively prevents the Court of Appeals from exercising its jurisdiction over a pending or potential appeal. Because the Relator in this case made no such showing, the court determined it was legally powerless to act upon the petition.
Holding
The court held that it lacks original jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a county clerk unless the relator demonstrates that the issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce the court’s jurisdiction.
Because the Relator failed to establish that the clerk’s actions interfered with the court’s jurisdiction, the petition was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Practical Application
For the family law litigator, this case highlights a procedural fork in the road. If a clerk refuses to perform a ministerial task—such as failing to issue a writ of withholding or refusing to file a motion—the proper respondent is the clerk, but the proper forum is the district court, not the court of appeals. A district court has general mandamus jurisdiction over the clerk. If, however, the clerk’s refusal to act (e.g., failing to prepare a clerk’s record) is preventing you from perfecting an appeal, you must explicitly plead that the writ is necessary to “enforce the jurisdiction” of the appellate court. Failure to include this jurisdictional hook will result in a summary dismissal.
Checklists
Determining the Mandamus Forum
- Identify the Respondent: If the respondent is a Judge or a Family Law Associate Judge, the Court of Appeals has direct jurisdiction under § 22.221(b).
- Identify the Clerk’s Role: If the respondent is a Clerk, the default forum is the District Court.
- Assess the Appellate Nexus: Does the Clerk’s inaction prevent the Court of Appeals from hearing an active or contemplated appeal?
- Pleading Requirements: If filing in the COA against a clerk, include a dedicated section titled “Necessity of Writ to Enforce Jurisdiction.”
Avoiding Jurisdictional Dismissal
- Check the List: Verify the respondent’s office against the list in Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221.
- Exhaust Trial Court Remedies: Before seeking mandamus against a clerk at the COA, ensure you have sought an order from the trial judge to compel the clerk to act.
- Verify the Record: Ensure the mandamus record includes evidence that the clerk was asked to perform the duty and refused.
Citation
In re Marcus Tyrone Grant, No. 14-26-00067-CR, 2026 WL [Pending] (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 27, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
In the trenches of a divorce or custody battle, this ruling can be weaponized against an opponent who files a “shotgun” mandamus in the Court of Appeals. If the opposing counsel seeks to compel a clerk to take action regarding a supersedeas bond or the issuance of a commitment order without proving a jurisdictional threat to the COA, a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is your immediate and most effective response.
Furthermore, note the statutory distinction for Family Law: while the Court of Appeals cannot mandamus a clerk, it expressly can mandamus a Chapter 201 Associate Judge. This creates a strategic advantage: if a clerk is following an Associate Judge’s informal (and incorrect) instruction not to process a file, focus your mandamus on the Associate Judge to bypass the jurisdictional hurdles associated with the clerk’s office. Understanding these boundaries ensures you don’t find yourself in the “No-Man’s Land” of appellate jurisdiction.
~~0a09dc94-d3c1-4354-95f3-2edf6009bcd5~~
Share this content:
