What did the court decide?

The court denied the petition for writ of mandamus and any emergency stay because the relator did not include the required certified copy of the trial-court order in the mandamus record.

Who is affected by this decision?

The relator, Ryen Michelle Staggers, is directly affected because she sought immediate relief from this court; the underlying child case proceedings remain subject to the trial court's order unless otherwise stayed by a proper filing.

What happens next in the underlying case?

Because the appellate court denied the mandamus and any stay, the underlying trial-court proceedings may proceed unless the relator obtains a stay or other relief from the trial court or properly supplements the mandamus record and seeks relief again.

Can this decision be appealed?

Mandamus denials by an intermediate appellate court are often final as to that remedy; the relator could attempt to file a new mandamus petition with the Texas Supreme Court, but must include the required record and follow rules for emergency relief.

In Re Ryen Michelle Staggers v. the State of Texas

Docket 01-26-00300-CV

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

OtherDenied

Filed: Apr 9, 2026 · 3 weeks ago
Jurisdiction: Texas
Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
Type: Lead Opinion
Case type: Other
Disposition: Denied
Docket: 01-26-00300-CV

Original mandamus proceeding seeking an emergency stay and writ of mandamus to vacate a trial-court order

Summary

The First District of Texas denied a pro se petitioner Ryen Michelle Staggers' request for a writ of mandamus and emergency stay. Staggers asked this Court to stay and vacate a March 27, 2026 trial-court order in an underlying child‑protection case, alleging extrinsic fraud and due-process violations. The appellate court declined relief because the mandamus record and appendix did not include the required certified copy of the March 27, 2026 order, preventing review of her claims. The court therefore denied the petition and dismissed any pending motions as moot.

Issues Decided

Whether the relator was entitled to an emergency stay and writ of mandamus to vacate the trial court's March 27, 2026 order
Whether the mandamus record complied with appellate rules by including a certified copy of the challenged trial-court order

Court's Reasoning

The court denied relief because the relator failed to include the challenged March 27, 2026 trial-court order in the mandamus appendix as required by Texas appellate rules. Without the certified or sworn copy of the order, the appellate court could not review the trial court's action or resolve the relator's claims of fraud and due-process violations. Because the procedural requirement was unmet, mandamus relief and an emergency stay could not be granted.

Authorities Cited

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

Parties

Relator: Ryen Michelle Staggers
Judge: Hon. Sandra Peake
Other: In the Interest of M.K.S.-C, a Child (Cause No. 2025-77173, 257th District Court, Harris County, Texas)

Key Dates

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

What You Should Do Next

1
Provide certified copy of the trial-court order
If seeking mandamus relief again, assemble and include a certified or sworn copy of the March 27, 2026 trial-court order in the mandamus appendix as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.
2
Consider filing in the Texas Supreme Court
If immediate relief is still needed, consult counsel about filing an original mandamus petition or emergency application with the Texas Supreme Court, ensuring the record is complete.
3
Seek temporary relief in the trial court
Consider asking the trial court for a stay or reconsideration of the order while preparing a complete appellate record, because appellate courts require the underlying order to review mandamus claims.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide?: The court denied the petition for writ of mandamus and any emergency stay because the relator did not include the required certified copy of the trial-court order in the mandamus record.
Who is affected by this decision?: The relator, Ryen Michelle Staggers, is directly affected because she sought immediate relief from this court; the underlying child case proceedings remain subject to the trial court's order unless otherwise stayed by a proper filing.
What happens next in the underlying case?: Because the appellate court denied the mandamus and any stay, the underlying trial-court proceedings may proceed unless the relator obtains a stay or other relief from the trial court or properly supplements the mandamus record and seeks relief again.
Can this decision be appealed?: Mandamus denials by an intermediate appellate court are often final as to that remedy; the relator could attempt to file a new mandamus petition with the Texas Supreme Court, but must include the required record and follow rules for emergency relief.

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. 01-26-00300-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 “seek[ing] an immediate [e]mergency [s]tay of the March 27, 2026

[trial court] [o]rder.”1 Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus asserted that the trial

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



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.
requested that this Court “[i]ssue an emergency order 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’s mandamus record and appendix does not include an order signed by

the trial court, dated March 27, 2026 or otherwise, so we are unable to study the

order to address any arguments raised by relator. 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”).

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.

                                   PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Gunn, Caughey, and Morgan.




                                           2