What did the court decide?

The appellate court denied Bolivar’s request for a writ of mandamus, meaning it refused to order the trial judge to act.

Why was the petition denied?

The court found Bolivar did not prove the trial court clearly abused its discretion, he had not shown he lacked an adequate appellate remedy, and he did not provide a sufficient record as required by the rules.

Who is affected by the decision?

Relator Randall Bolivar is directly affected; the trial court retains discretion and is not compelled by this decision to take the requested ministerial actions.

Can Bolivar try again or appeal?

He may consider providing a more complete record or pursue other available remedies, including an appeal if a final judgment is entered; mandamus relief is extraordinary and requires strict proof.

In Re Randall Bolivar v. the State of Texas

Docket 13-26-00233-CV

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

OtherDenied

Filed: Apr 23, 2026 · 1 week ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Other
Disposition: Denied
Docket: 13-26-00233-CV

Original proceeding: petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel trial court action in cause number 2021-DCL-05478 in the 357th District Court of Cameron County, Texas.

Summary

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas denied Randall Bolivar’s pro se petition for a writ of mandamus in a Cameron County district court case. Bolivar asked the appellate court to order the trial court to perform ministerial duties of setting, hearing, and ruling on pending matters. The appellate court concluded Bolivar failed to show both a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court and the lack of an adequate appellate remedy, and he also did not supply a sufficient record as required by the mandamus rules. For these reasons, the petition was denied.

Issues Decided

Whether the trial court clearly abused its discretion by refusing to set, hear, and rule on pending matters.
Whether the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal such that mandamus relief is appropriate.
Whether the relator provided the required appendix and record sufficient to support a mandamus petition under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.

Court's Reasoning

The court applied the two-part mandamus standard: the relator must show (1) a clear abuse of discretion and (2) no adequate appellate remedy. The petition failed because Bolivar did not meet his burden to prove those elements. The court also noted the rules require a sufficient record and appendix to support mandamus relief, which Bolivar did not provide, so relief was denied.

Authorities Cited

In re Illinois National Insurance Co.685 S.W.3d 826 (Tex. 2024)
Walker v. Packer827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992)
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3, 52.7(a), 52.8(d)

Parties

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

Key Dates

Opinion filed: 2026-04-23

What You Should Do Next

1
Prepare a complete record
If seeking mandamus relief again, compile and include the full appendix and record required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52 to support claims that the trial court failed to act.
2
Consult an attorney
Discuss with counsel whether mandamus is appropriate or whether other remedies or appeals are available based on the procedural posture of the underlying case.
3
Consider pursuing appeal after final order
If the trial court enters a final order adverse to Bolivar, evaluate whether that decision can be appealed as an alternative to another mandamus petition.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The appellate court denied Bolivar’s request for a writ of mandamus, meaning it refused to order the trial judge to act.
Why was the petition denied?: The court found Bolivar did not prove the trial court clearly abused its discretion, he had not shown he lacked an adequate appellate remedy, and he did not provide a sufficient record as required by the rules.
Who is affected by the decision?: Relator Randall Bolivar is directly affected; the trial court retains discretion and is not compelled by this decision to take the requested ministerial actions.
Can Bolivar try again or appeal?: He may consider providing a more complete record or pursue other available remedies, including an appeal if a final judgment is entered; mandamus relief is extraordinary and requires strict proof.

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 13-26-00233-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 “has refused to perform the ministerial duties of setting, hearing, and ruling” on

pending matters. 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
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,
“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.

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Bolivar, No. 13-26-00188-CV, 2026 WL _____, at *_ (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi–Edinburg Apr. _, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).