In Re Antonio G. Cantu v. the State of Texas
Docket 13-26-00336-CV
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Court
- Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District
- Type
- Lead Opinion
- Case type
- Other
- Disposition
- Denied
- Docket
- 13-26-00336-CV
Original proceeding seeking a writ of mandamus to compel disqualification of the Attorney General and an assistant attorney general in a pending trial-court case
Summary
The court denied Antonio G. Cantu’s petition and supplemental petition for a writ of mandamus asking the appellate court to order the trial court to disqualify the Texas Attorney General and an assistant attorney general from representing a party in the underlying suit. The court explained that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and that the relator bears the burden to show a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court and lack of an adequate appellate remedy. After reviewing the filings and law, the court concluded Cantu did not meet that burden and therefore denied relief.
Issues Decided
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to disqualify the Texas Attorney General and an Assistant Attorney General as counsel in the underlying litigation
- Whether the relator demonstrated he lacks an adequate remedy by appeal to justify mandamus relief
Court's Reasoning
Mandamus relief is available only when a relator proves a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court and shows there is no adequate remedy by appeal. The relator bears the burden of proving both requirements. After examining the petitions and applicable precedent, the court found Cantu failed to meet that burden, so extraordinary relief was not warranted.
Authorities Cited
- In re Illinois National Insurance685 S.W.3d 826 (Tex. 2024)
- In re Prudential Insurance Co. of America148 S.W.3d 124 (Tex. 2004)
- Walker v. Packer827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992)
Parties
- Relator
- Antonio G. Cantu
- Respondent
- Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas
- Respondent
- Scot M. Graydon, Assistant Attorney General of Texas
- 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
Proceed in the trial court
Parties should continue litigation in the trial court consistent with the court’s existing rulings, since the disqualification challenge remains unresolved in Cantu's favor.
- 2
Consult appellate counsel
Cantu should consult an attorney about whether any additional extraordinary relief is available or whether to preserve issues for appeal from a final judgment.
- 3
Preserve record
Ensure the trial-court record preserves all objections and motions related to disqualification to support any future appellate or extraordinary filings.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court denied Cantu’s request for a writ of mandamus seeking to force the trial court to disqualify the Attorney General and an assistant attorney general from the case.
- Why was the request denied?
- The court found 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 relief.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- Antonio G. Cantu (the relator), the Attorney General’s office counsel at issue, and the parties in the underlying trial-court case are directly affected because the trial court’s representation ruling stands.
- What happens next in the underlying case?
- The trial court’s ruling on disqualification remains in place; litigants may continue in the trial court and may pursue ordinary appellate review when final or otherwise appropriate.
- Can this denial be appealed?
- This denial is an appellate ruling on a mandamus petition; Cantu could pursue further extraordinary relief but generally must show the mandamus standards in another court, or seek review through any available avenues recognized by appellate practice.
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 13-26-00336-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
opinions issued on this same date. See In re Cantu, No. 13-26-00337-CV, 2026 WL _____, at *_ (Tex.
abused its discretion by failing to disqualify Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, and
Scot M. Graydon, Assistant Attorney General of Texas, as counsel in the underlying
litigation.
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
that relator has not met his burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition
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
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