What did the court decide?

The court denied Bolivar’s request for a writ of mandamus, meaning it will not order the trial court to take the actions he sought.

Why was the petition denied?

Mandamus requires proving a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy, and the court found Bolivar did not meet that burden and provided an insufficient record.

Who is affected by this decision?

Primarily Bolivar and the parties in the underlying trial-court case; the trial court’s decisions remain undisturbed by this appellate action.

What can Bolivar do next?

Bolivar may pursue ordinary appellate review if appropriate, or seek to supplement the record or pursue relief in the trial court, including renewing motions or requesting hearings.

In Re Randall Bolivar v. the State of Texas

Docket 13-26-00188-CV

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilDenied

Filed: Apr 23, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Denied
Docket: 13-26-00188-CV

Original proceeding: petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel the trial court to act in a civil case (cause no. 2021-DCL-05478).

Summary

The Court of Appeals (Thirteenth District) denied Randall Bolivar’s petition for a writ of mandamus challenging several trial-court actions in cause no. 2021-DCL-05478. Bolivar argued the trial court abused its discretion by not deeming requests for admission admitted, by failing to provide notice and hearings on six motions, and by not signing a nonsuit order. The court held that mandamus is extraordinary relief and that Bolivar failed to meet his burden to show both a clear abuse of discretion and lack of an adequate appellate remedy, and the record provided was insufficient to support mandamus relief.

Issues Decided

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying relator’s motion to deem requests for admission admitted.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to provide notice and hearings for six motions.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to sign an order of nonsuit.
Whether relator demonstrated that he lacks an adequate appellate remedy such that mandamus is appropriate.

Court's Reasoning

The court explained that mandamus requires a clear abuse of discretion and lack of an adequate appellate remedy, and that the relator bears the burden of proof. The petition and the limited record submitted did not establish those prerequisites. Because Bolivar failed to provide a sufficient record and did not show the necessary elements for extraordinary relief, the court concluded mandamus was not warranted.

Authorities Cited

In re Illinois National Insurance Co.685 S.W.3d 826 (Tex. 2024)
Walker v. Packer827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992)
In re H.E.B. Grocery Co.492 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2016)
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3, 52.7(a)

Parties

Petitioner: Randall Bolivar
Judge: L. Aron Peña Jr.

Key Dates

Opinion filed: 2026-04-23

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult counsel to evaluate appellate options
Speak with an attorney to determine whether ordinary appeal is available and advisable, and to assess whether additional motions or a more complete record could support relief.
2
Supplement the trial-court record
If relevant, obtain and file the missing documentation or transcripts in the trial court or on appeal to establish the factual basis for any future extraordinary relief request.
3
Pursue motions in the trial court
Consider renewing requests for admissions, motions for hearing, or a signed nonsuit with supporting evidence and request rulings on the record to preserve issues for appellate review.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court denied Bolivar’s request for a writ of mandamus, meaning it will not order the trial court to take the actions he sought.
Why was the petition denied?: Mandamus requires proving a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate appellate remedy, and the court found Bolivar did not meet that burden and provided an insufficient record.
Who is affected by this decision?: Primarily Bolivar and the parties in the underlying trial-court case; the trial court’s decisions remain undisturbed by this appellate action.
What can Bolivar do next?: Bolivar may pursue ordinary appellate review if appropriate, or seek to supplement the record or pursue relief in the trial court, including renewing motions or requesting hearings.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

NUMBER 13-26-00188-CV

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG


                                 IN RE RANDALL BOLIVAR


                      ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS


                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Peña and West
                  Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña1

        By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, relator Randall Bolivar asserts that the

trial court abused its discretion by: (1) denying relator’s motion to deem requests for

admission admitted as a matter of law; (2) failing to provide notice and hearing for six

different motions; and (3) failing to sign an order of nonsuit. 2


         1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
        2 This  original proceeding arises from trial court cause number 2021-DCL-05478 in the 357th
District Court of Cameron County, Texas. By memorandum opinions issued this same date, we have
        “Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy available only on a showing that

(1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion and (2) the party seeking relief lacks an

adequate remedy on appeal.” In re Ill. Nat’l Ins., 685 S.W.3d 826, 834 (Tex. 2024) (orig.

proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

“The relator bears the burden of proving these two requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery

Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Walker, 827

S.W.2d at 840. In addition to other requirements for the contents of a petition for writ of

mandamus, the relator must provide an appendix and record sufficient to support the

claim for relief. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3, 52.7(a).

        The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the applicable law, and the limited record provided, is of the opinion that relator has not

met his burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

                                                                         L. ARON PEÑA JR.
                                                                         Justice


Delivered and filed on the
23rd day of April, 2026.




addressed other petitions for writs of mandamus arising from this same trial court cause number. See In re
Vasquez, No. 13-26-00044-CV, 2026 WL _____, at *_ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Apr. _, 2026,
orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Bolivar, No. 13-26-00233-CV, 2026 WL _____, at *_ (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi–Edinburg Apr. _, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

                                                    2