What did the appeals court decide?

The court denied the mandamus petition because the relator failed to file the required certified copy of the trial court's order, preventing review of the merits.

Who is affected by this decision?

The relator, Ryen Michelle Staggers, and the underlying family court proceedings in Harris County are affected because the requested stay and vacatur were denied.

What happens next in the underlying case?

With this mandamus denied, the trial court's March 27, 2026 order remains in effect unless the relator obtains relief from the trial court or files a properly supported appellate or mandamus filing.

Why was the mandamus denied?

Because the relator did not include the required mandamus record or certified copy of the challenged order as required by the appellate rules, the court could not evaluate the claim.

Can the relator try again or appeal?

Yes. The relator may refile a mandamus petition or pursue an appeal, but must include the required record and certified copies to permit appellate review.

In Re Ryen Michelle Staggers v. the State of Texas

Docket 01-26-00311-CV

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

FamilyDenied

Filed: Apr 9, 2026 · 3 weeks ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Family
Disposition: Denied
Docket: 01-26-00311-CV

Original mandamus proceeding seeking emergency stay and vacatur of a trial court temporary order

Summary

The First Court of Appeals denied a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Ryen Michelle Staggers seeking to vacate and stay enforcement of a March 27, 2026 temporary order from a Harris County family-court case. The appellate court concluded Staggers failed to provide the mandatory mandamus record or appendix that includes a certified copy of the challenged trial court order, as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Because the court could not review the order, it found she had not shown entitlement to mandamus relief and therefore denied the petition and dismissed pending motions as moot.

Issues Decided

Whether the relator complied with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure by filing a mandamus record or appendix containing the challenged trial court order.
Whether failure to provide a certified copy of the challenged order precludes consideration of mandamus relief.

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on the rule that a mandamus petition must be accompanied by an appendix or mandamus record including a certified or sworn copy of the relevant trial court order. Because the relator did not include the March 27, 2026 order in the record, the court could not review the challenged action on the merits. That procedural omission meant the relator failed to establish entitlement to mandamus relief, so the petition was denied.

Authorities Cited

Texas Rules of Appellate ProcedureRule 52.3(l)(1)(B), Rule 52.7(a)
In re State Farm LloydsNo. 05-25-01224-CV, 2025 WL 2723146 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 24, 2025) (mem. op.)

Parties

Relator: Ryen Michelle Staggers
Judge: Hon. Sandra Peake

Key Dates

Opinion issued: 2026-04-09
Challenged trial court order (date alleged): 2026-03-27

What You Should Do Next

1
Provide the required mandamus record
If seeking mandamus relief again, file a new petition with an appendix or mandamus record that includes a certified or sworn copy of the challenged trial court order dated March 27, 2026.
2
Consult an attorney
Consider consulting family-law counsel to ensure procedural requirements are met and to evaluate whether immediate relief should be sought from the trial court.
3
Seek relief in the trial court
If appropriate, move in the trial court to vacate or modify the temporary order and create a proper record before pursuing appellate relief.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the appeals court decide?: The court denied the mandamus petition because the relator failed to file the required certified copy of the trial court's order, preventing review of the merits.
Who is affected by this decision?: The relator, Ryen Michelle Staggers, and the underlying family court proceedings in Harris County are affected because the requested stay and vacatur were denied.
What happens next in the underlying case?: With this mandamus denied, the trial court's March 27, 2026 order remains in effect unless the relator obtains relief from the trial court or files a properly supported appellate or mandamus filing.
Why was the mandamus denied?: Because the relator did not include the required mandamus record or certified copy of the challenged order as required by the appellate rules, the court could not evaluate the claim.
Can the relator try again or appeal?: Yes. The relator may refile a mandamus petition or pursue an appeal, but must include the required record and certified copies to permit appellate review.

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

Opinion issued April 9, 2026




                                       In The

                               Court of Appeals
                                      For The

                           First District of Texas
                            ————————————
                               NO. 01-26-00311-CV
                            ———————————
               IN RE RYEN MICHELLE STAGGERS, Relator


            Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus


                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Relator, Ryen Michelle Staggers, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ

of mandamus challenging a “[c]ontested [t]emporary [o]rder signed by the [trial

court] on March 27, 2026.”1 Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus asserted that

the trial court abused its discretion by signing the March 27, 2026 order. Relator



1
      The underlying case is In the Interest of M.K.S.-C, a Child, Cause No. 2025-77173,
      in the 257th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Sandra Peake
      presiding.
therefore requested that this Court “[i]ssue an emergency order under [Texas Rule

of Appellate Procedure] 52.10 staying the enforcement of the March 27, 2026[]

[o]rder . . . , stay all underlying proceedings in the [t]rial [c]ourt pending the

resolution” of the petition, and to further grant her petition for writ of mandamus and

direct the trial court to vacate the March 27, 2026 order “as void due to extrinsic

fraud and the violation of [r]elator’s due process rights.”

      Relator previously filed an original proceeding in this Court, assigned

appellate case number 01-26-00300-CV, seeking similar relief. As in her previous

original proceeding, relator has failed to file a mandamus record or appendix

including an order signed by the trial court, dated March 27, 2026 or otherwise. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(l)(1)(B) (requiring relator to provide an appendix to petition for

writ of mandamus including “a certified or sworn copy of the relevant trial court

order”), 52.7(a); see also In re State Farm Lloyds, No. 05-25-01224-CV, 2025 WL

2723146, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 24, 2025, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)

(denying mandamus relief “[b]ecause the mandamus record d[id] not include a copy

of the trial court’s order”). That leaves this Court unable to study the order

challenged by relator to consider the merits of her petition. Accordingly, we

conclude that relator has failed to establish she is entitled to mandamus relief, and

therefore, the Court denies relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We dismiss any

pending motions as moot.

                                           2
                                PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Gunn, Caughey, and Morgan.




                                       3