What did the court decide?

The court denied Antonio Cantu's petitions for a writ of mandamus and refused to overturn the trial court's order that directed removal of criminal allegations and struck his pleadings when he did not comply.

Who is affected by this decision?

Relator Antonio G. Cantu is directly affected; the trial court's order remains in place unless changed by further proceedings.

Cantu may consider pursuing available remedies in the trial court or raising appropriate issues on direct appeal if a final appealable order arises; mandamus relief was denied because he did not meet the high standard for extraordinary relief.

Why didn't the court grant mandamus?

Because Cantu failed to prove both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that he had no adequate remedy by appeal, which are required for mandamus relief.

Can this be appealed further?

The appellate mandamus denial is generally final in this court, but Cantu could seek review by the Texas Supreme Court if he timely files a petition and meets that court's standards for review.

In Re Antonio G. Cantu v. the State of Texas

Docket 13-26-00337-CV

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

OtherDenied

Filed: May 1, 2026 · 5 days ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Other
Disposition: Denied
Docket: 13-26-00337-CV

Original petitions for writ of mandamus seeking relief from a trial court order striking pleadings.

Summary

The Court of Appeals (13th District) denied Antonio G. Cantu's petitions for writ of mandamus challenging a trial court order that directed him to remove allegations describing criminal conduct from his pleadings and struck his pleadings when he failed to do so. The court reviewed mandamus standards and concluded Cantu did not meet his burden to show the trial court clearly abused its discretion or that he lacked an adequate appellate remedy. Because he failed to establish those requirements, the court refused extraordinary relief and denied all three mandamus petitions.

Issues Decided

Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering relator to remove allegations describing criminal conduct from his pleadings.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by striking relator's pleadings for failing to remove those allegations.
Whether relator lacked an adequate appellate remedy such that mandamus was appropriate.

Court's Reasoning

The court applied the well-established two-part mandamus test requiring a clear abuse of discretion and lack of an adequate appellate remedy. After reviewing the petitions and applicable precedent, the court found relator did not carry his burden to prove those elements. Because he failed to show both a clear abuse and the absence of an adequate appeal remedy, extraordinary relief was not warranted.

Authorities Cited

In re Illinois National Insurance Co.685 S.W.3d 826 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding)
In re Prudential Insurance Co. of America148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding)
Walker v. Packer827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)

Parties

Relator: Antonio G. Cantu
Judge: Ysmael D. Fonseca

Key Dates

Opinion filed: 2026-05-01
Transfer order by Texas Supreme Court: 2026-04-23

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult counsel
Obtain an attorney to review the trial-court order, the pleadings, and potential appellate issues to determine whether to amend pleadings, seek relief in the trial court, or prepare an appeal.
2
Comply with or challenge trial-court order
Decide whether to remove the challenged allegations from the pleadings to avoid dismissal or file appropriate motions in the trial court (e.g., motion for reconsideration) to contest the order.
3
Consider seeking review in Texas Supreme Court
If appropriate, prepare a petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court, showing why mandamus should have been granted and why the issue is of statewide importance.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court denied Antonio Cantu's petitions for a writ of mandamus and refused to overturn the trial court's order that directed removal of criminal allegations and struck his pleadings when he did not comply.
Who is affected by this decision?: Relator Antonio G. Cantu is directly affected; the trial court's order remains in place unless changed by further proceedings.
What happens next?: Cantu may consider pursuing available remedies in the trial court or raising appropriate issues on direct appeal if a final appealable order arises; mandamus relief was denied because he did not meet the high standard for extraordinary relief.
Why didn't the court grant mandamus?: Because Cantu failed to prove both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that he had no adequate remedy by appeal, which are required for mandamus relief.
Can this be appealed further?: The appellate mandamus denial is generally final in this court, but Cantu could seek review by the Texas Supreme Court if he timely files a petition and meets that court's standards for 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

NUMBER 13-26-00337-CV

                                   COURT OF APPEALS

                       THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                          CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG


                                 IN RE ANTONIO G. CANTU


                      ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS


                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

                    Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Fonseca
                    Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca1

        Relator Antonio G. Cantu filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, a

supplemental petition for writ of mandamus, and a second supplemental petition for writ

of mandamus through which he asserts that the trial court2 abused its discretion by


         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 2025CI22843 in the 37th District

Court of Bexar County, Texas. This original proceeding and two others arising from this same trial court
cause number were transferred to this Court by order of the Texas Supreme Court. See Misc. Docket No.
ordering relator “to remove all allegations that describe criminal conduct” from his

pleadings and by striking his pleadings for failing to do so.

       A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and 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); In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v.

Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The relator must

ordinarily show that: (1) the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion; and (2) the

relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re Dallas HERO, 698 S.W.3d 242, 247

(Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36;

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;

see also Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992,

orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must

show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”).

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

the supplemental petition for writ of mandamus, the second supplemental petition for writ

of mandamus, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden

to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, supplemental




26-9027 (Tex. Apr. 23, 2026). We dispose of the other two original proceedings by separate memorandum
opinions issued on this same date. See In re Cantu, No. 13-26-00336-CV, 2026 WL _____, at *_ (Tex.
App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Apr. __, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Cantu, No. 13-26-00338-
CV, 2026 WL _____, at *_ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Apr. __, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem.
op.).


                                                      2
petition for writ of mandamus, and second supplemental petition for writ of mandamus.



                                                            YSMAEL D. FONSECA
                                                            Justice


Delivered and filed on the
1st day of May, 2026.




                                              3