In Re Randall Bolivar v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-26-00188-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE RANDALL BOLIVAR

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices Peña and West
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Peña1

By pro se petition for writ of mandamus, relator Randall Bolivar asserts that the

trial court abused its discretion by: (1) denying relator’s motion to deem requests for

admission admitted as a matter of law; (2) failing to provide notice and hearing for six

different motions; and (3) failing to sign an order of nonsuit. 2

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. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R.
47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2 This original proceeding arises from trial court cause number 2021-DCL-05478 in the 357th
District Court of Cameron County, Texas. By memorandum opinions issued this same date, we have
“Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy available only on a showing that

(1) the trial court clearly abused its discretion and (2) the party seeking relief lacks an

adequate remedy on appeal.” In re Ill. Nat’l Ins., 685 S.W.3d 826, 834 (Tex. 2024) (orig.

proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

“The relator bears the burden of proving these two requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery

Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); Walker, 827

S.W.2d at 840. In addition to other requirements for the contents of a petition for writ of

mandamus, the relator must provide an appendix and record sufficient to support the

claim for relief. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3, 52.7(a).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

the applicable law, and the limited record provided, is of the opinion that relator has not

met his burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

L. ARON PEÑA JR.
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
23rd day of April, 2026.

addressed other petitions for writs of mandamus arising from this same trial court cause number. See In re
Vasquez, No. 13-26-00044-CV, 2026 WL _____, at *_ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Apr. _, 2026,
orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Bolivar, No. 13-26-00233-CV, 2026 WL _____, at *_ (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi–Edinburg Apr. _, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

2