IN RE ESTHER NAKITA NGUMA--Appeal from 93rd District Court of Hidalgo County (per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NUMBER 13-12-00618-CV COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG IN RE ESTHER NAKITA NGUMA On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1 Relator, Esther Nakita Nguma, filed a petition for writ of mandamus on October 12, 2012, seeking relief from an order denying her motion to recuse the Honorable Letty Lopez, Presiding Judge of the 389th Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. I. STANDARD OF REVIEW To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator must show that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy 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. ); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). 1 appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to mandamus relief, and this burden is a heavy one. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding). II. APPLICABLE LAW Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a, [a]n order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only for abuse of discretion on appeal from the final judgment, whereas an order denying a motion to disqualify may be reviewed by mandamus and may be appealed in accordance with other law. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j)(1)(A), (2). Accordingly, relator has an adequate remedy by appeal for the denial of her motion to recuse. See In re Union Pac. Res. Co., 969 S.W.2d 427, 429 (Tex. 1998) (orig. proceeding). Because mandamus is expressly reserved for situations where a relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal, the petition for writ of mandamus must be denied. In re Reece, 341 S.W.3d 360 (Tex. 2011) (orig. proceeding). III. CONCLUSION The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met her burden to obtain mandamus relief. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135 36. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). PER CURIAM Delivered and filed this the 15th day of October, 2012. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
