In re Tamara Ford Appeal from County Court of Palo Pinto County (memorandum opinion per curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed March 11, 2021 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-21-00030-CV __________ IN RE TAMARA FORD Original Mandamus Proceeding MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Tamara Ford, filed this original petition for writ of mandamus in which she requests that we instruct the Honorable Shane Long, presiding judge of the County Court of Palo Pinto County, to rule on Relator’s February 25, 2021 motion to reinstate her appeal from the judgment of the justice court in a forcible detainer action and/or to reconsider the dismissal of the appeal. Relator also requests that, in order to preserve and protect this court’s jurisdiction, we stay all proceedings in the underlying case pending a ruling from this court. The mandamus record provided by Relator consists solely of the motion to reinstate. To be entitled to relief by mandamus, Relator must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that Relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); see also In re Murrin Bros. 1885, Ltd., 603 S.W.3d 53, 56 (Tex. 2019) (orig. proceeding). After reviewing the petition and the record, we conclude that the petition is deficient, see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1), and that, in any event, Relator has an adequate appellate remedy, see Brigandi v. Am. Mortg. Inv. Partners Fund I Tr., No. 02-16-00444-CV, 2017 WL 1428726, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 20, 2017, pet. dism’d) (mem. op.) (per curiam); In re Brigandi, No. 02-1600414-CV, 2016 WL 6803895, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 17, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (per curiam). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We also deny as moot Relator’s request that all underlying proceedings in the case be stayed pending a decision from this court. PER CURIAM March 11, 2021 Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J. 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.