In Re: Lakeith Raqib Amir-Sharif Appeal from 191st Judicial District Court of Dallas County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Conditionally granted and Opinion Filed September 25, 2017 In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-17-00955-CV IN RE LAKEITH RAQIB AMIR-SHARIF, Relator Original Proceeding from the 191st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-09-13818-J MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Boatright Opinion by Justice Myers In this original proceeding, relator seeks a writ ordering the trial court to rule on relator’s motions to re-open cases and relator’s motion for court to determine appellate costs owed relator. By order dated September 8, 2017, we requested that the real party in interest and respondent file their responses, if any, to relator’s petition for writ of mandamus by September 19, 2017. No responses were filed. We conditionally grant the relief requested. Availability of Mandamus Relief “ ‘When a motion is properly filed and pending before a trial court, the act of giving consideration to and ruling upon that motion is a ministerial act,’ and mandamus may issue to compel the trial judge to act.” Safety–Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.— San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding). To obtain mandamus relief for the trial court’s refusal to rule on a motion, a relator must establish: (1) the motion was properly filed and has been pending for a reasonable time; (2) the relator requested a ruling on the motion; and (3) the trial court refused to rule. In re Buholtz, No. 05-16-01312-CV, 2017 WL 462361, at *1 (Tex. App.— Dallas Jan. 31, 2017, orig. proceeding); Crouch v. Shields, 385 S.W.2d 580, 582 (Tex. App.— Dallas 1964, writ ref’d n.r.e.). To be properly filed and timely presented, a motion must be presented to a trial court at a time when the court has authority to act on the motion. See In re Hogg–Bey, No. 05–15–01421–CV, 2015 WL 9591997, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 30, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not designated for publication). It is relator’s burden to provide the court with a record sufficient to establish his right to relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex.1992); TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a). Applicable Law A trial court is required to consider and rule upon a motion within a reasonable time. Safety–Kleen Corp., 945 S.W.2d at 269. No litigant is entitled to a hearing at whatever time he may choose, however. In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 229 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). A trial court has a reasonable time within which to consider a motion and to rule. In re Craig, 426 S.W.3d 106, 107 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, orig. proceeding); In re Sarkissian, 243 S.W.3d 860, 861 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, orig. proceeding). “Whether a reasonable time for the trial court to act has lapsed is dependent upon the circumstances of each case and no bright line separates a reasonable time period from an unreasonable one.” In re Shapira, No. 05-16-00184-CV, 2016 WL 1756754, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 29, 2016, orig. proceeding). Among the criteria included are the trial court’s actual knowledge of the motion, its overt refusal to act, the state of the court’s docket, and the existence of other judicial and administrative matters which must be addressed first. Id.; In re First Mercury Ins. Co., No. 13-13-00469-CV, 2013 WL 6056665, at *3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Nov. 13, 2013, orig. proceeding). –2– Analysis The trial court heard relator’s motions to re-open cases on September 23, 2016 but the trial court has not ruled on the motions. The trial court has also failed to rule on relator’s October 18, 2016 motion for court to determine appellate costs owed relator. Relator has filed at least twelve letters between November 29, 2016 and July 10, 2017 asking the trial court to rule on the motions. He also filed at least two motions for ruling since November 15, 2016. The motions to re-open cases and motion for court to determine appellate costs were properly-filed and presented to the trial court at a time when the trial court could act on the motions. The motions have been pending for nearly a year without rulings. The trial court has had more than a reasonable time to rule, and relator has done what is required to obtain a ruling on the motion. Under these circumstances, we conclude mandamus relief is appropriate. See, e.g., In re First Mercury Ins. Co., 2013 WL 6056665 at *3 (three-month delay unreasonable); see also Kissam v. Williamson, 545 S.W.2d 265, 267 (Tex. Civ. App.—Tyler 1976, orig. proceeding) (thirteenmonth delay unreasonable). Accordingly, we conditionally grant the writ of mandamus. We direct the trial court to make written rulings within fifteen (15) days of the date of this opinion on relator’s motions to re-open cases and relator’s October 18, 2016 motion for court to determine appellate costs owed relator. A writ will issue only if the trial court fails to comply with this opinion and the order of this date. 170955F.P05 /s/Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE –3–
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.
