In Re J. E. Pendleton v. the State of Texas - Mandamus
Summary
The Texas Court of Appeals denied a petition for writ of mandamus filed by J. E. Pendleton, who sought to appear in court via video conference while seeking asylum in Canada. The court found that the relator failed to provide a sufficient record to establish entitlement to extraordinary relief.
What changed
The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, denied a petition for writ of mandamus filed by J. E. Pendleton. The relator, identified as a U.S. citizen seeking asylum in Canada, sought to appear in a Texas District Court proceeding via video conference, asserting it was his only means of accessing the courts. The court's decision, issued on March 20, 2026, found that the relator failed to meet his burden of providing a sufficient record to evaluate his claims, citing rules requiring a complete record of all material documents filed in the underlying proceeding.
This ruling means the relator's request for a video conference appearance was denied, and the case will proceed without this accommodation, based on the current record. Legal professionals involved in similar cases, particularly those involving individuals with complex immigration statuses seeking court access, should note the stringent record-keeping requirements mandated by Texas appellate procedure for extraordinary relief petitions. Failure to provide a complete and sworn record can result in denial of the petition, as demonstrated in this case.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Top Caption Disposition Lead Opinion
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 20, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
In Re J. E. Pendleton v. the State of Texas
Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 03-26-00091-CV
- Nature of Suit: Mandamus
Disposition: Motion or Writ Denied
Disposition
Motion or Writ Denied
Lead Opinion
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-26-00091-CV
In re J. E. Pendleton
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BASTROP COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator has filed a petition for writ of mandamus to allow his “appearance in the
District Court by video conference or other electronic means” because he “is a U.S. citizen
seeking asylum in Canada” and “has no other way to access the Texas Courts.”
It is Relator’s burden to request and properly establish entitlement to
extraordinary relief, including by providing this Court with a sufficient record from which to
evaluate his claims. See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992); In re Smith,
No. 03-14-00478-CV, 2014 WL 4079922, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 13, 2014, orig.
proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying mandamus relief when relator failed to provide sufficient
record); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a) (requiring relator to file record containing sworn
copies “of every document that is material to [his] claim for relief and that was filed in any
underlying proceeding”).
Here, Relator has not provided us with a sufficient record from which we may
evaluate the merits of his petition. On this record, we conclude that Relator has failed to show
entitlement to relief. Accordingly, his petition for writ of mandamus is denied. 1 See Tex. R.
App. P. 52.8(a).
Maggie Ellis, Justice
Before Justices Triana, Kelly, and Ellis
Filed: March 20, 2026
1
Relator also filed a motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus. We
dismiss this motion as moot.
2
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Courts & Legal alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when Texas Court of Appeals publishes new changes.