What did the court decide?

The appellate court denied Cantu’s petitions for mandamus, meaning it refused to overturn the trial court’s Rule 91a dismissal.

Who is affected by this decision?

Relator Antonio G. Cantu is directly affected; the trial court’s dismissal stands unless other relief is obtained.

Why did the court deny the petitions?

Because Cantu did not prove the trial court clearly abused its discretion or that he lacked an adequate remedy by appeal, which are required for mandamus.

Can Cantu still challenge the dismissal?

Possibly; the denial of mandamus does not necessarily preclude pursuing a direct appeal or other appropriate post-judgment remedies, subject to procedural rules and deadlines.

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

Docket 13-26-00338-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: 13-26-00338-CV

Original proceeding seeking a writ of mandamus reviewing a trial court’s dismissal under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a.

Summary

The Court of Appeals (Thirteenth District) denied Antonio G. Cantu’s petition and supplemental petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s dismissal under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a. The appellate court explained that mandamus is extraordinary relief requiring the relator to show a clear abuse of discretion and lack of an adequate appellate remedy, and that Cantu did not meet that burden. After considering the filings and the applicable law, the court concluded relief was not warranted and denied the petitions without granting any further relief.

Issues Decided

Whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion in granting a Rule 91a motion to dismiss.
Whether the relator lacked an adequate remedy by appeal such that mandamus relief was appropriate.

Court's Reasoning

The court reiterated that mandamus requires the relator to prove both a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court and that no adequate appellate remedy exists. Applying that standard to Cantu’s submissions and the law governing Rule 91a dismissals, the court found Cantu did not carry his burden to justify extraordinary relief. Because the prerequisites for mandamus were not satisfied, the court denied the petitions.

Authorities Cited

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91aTEX. R. CIV. P. 91a.1–.9
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)
In re H.E.B. Grocery Co.492 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding)

Parties

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

Key Dates

Opinion delivered and filed: 2026-05-01
Texas Supreme Court transfer order: 2026-04-23

What You Should Do Next

1
Consult an attorney
Cantu should consult a lawyer promptly to evaluate whether a direct appeal or other post-judgment remedies are available and to ensure compliance with filing deadlines.
2
Consider filing a direct appeal
If permitted, pursue a direct appeal of the trial court’s dismissal under Rule 91a, following appellate procedures and deadlines.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court denied Cantu’s petitions for mandamus, meaning it refused to overturn the trial court’s Rule 91a dismissal.
Who is affected by this decision?: Relator Antonio G. Cantu is directly affected; the trial court’s dismissal stands unless other relief is obtained.
Why did the court deny the petitions?: Because Cantu did not prove the trial court clearly abused its discretion or that he lacked an adequate remedy by appeal, which are required for mandamus.
Can Cantu still challenge the dismissal?: Possibly; the denial of mandamus does not necessarily preclude pursuing a direct appeal or other appropriate post-judgment remedies, subject to procedural rules and deadlines.

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 13-26-00338-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 and a

supplemental petition for writ of mandamus through which he asserts that the trial court2


        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.
26-9027 (Tex. Apr. 23, 2026). We dispose of the other two original proceedings by separate memorandum
abused its discretion in various respects by granting a motion to dismiss filed pursuant to

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a. See generally TEX. R. CIV. P. 91a.1–.9 (governing the

dismissal of baseless causes of action).

       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, and the applicable law, is of the opinion




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. 13-26-00337-
CV, 2026 WL _____, at *_ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Apr. __, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem.
op.).
                                                      2
that relator has not met his burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition

for writ of mandamus and supplemental petition for writ of mandamus.



                                                                YSMAEL D. FONSECA
                                                                Justice


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




                                                 3