In re Adrian Sibley — Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Motion for Temporary Relief Denied; Motion to Consolidate Dismissed;
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied in Part and Dismissed in Part; and
Memorandum Opinion filed October 22, 2026.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
NO. 14-26-01028-CV
IN RE ADRIAN SIBLEY, Relator
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
WRIT OF MANDAMUS
County Civil Court at Law No. 4
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1217589
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On October 1, 2026, relator Adrian Sibley filed a petition for writ of
mandamus challenging the county court’s May 13, 2026 final judgment in the
underlying forcible detainer action. Relator contends that the county court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the matter because: (1) the justice court “did not have
subject matter jurisdiction over the eviction because [it] evaluated [a] debt dispute
regarding a security interest”; and (2) relator did not timely perfect her appeal from

2
the justice court to the county court. Alternatively, relator claims the county court
did not have jurisdiction to render the final judgment because the case had been
removed to federal court when the judgment was signed. Relator asks this court to
compel the county court to dismiss the case or, alternatively, to vacate the final
judgment.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only to correct a clear
abuse of discretion when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential
Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–38 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). A trial
court abuses its discretion when it signs an order in a case in which it has no
jurisdiction. See In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig.
proceeding) (per curiam). An order issued without jurisdiction is void, and the
relator need not show that she lacks an adequate appellate remedy to obtain
mandamus relief. Id.
The record before us does not demonstrate that the county court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the underlying action. Therefore, relator is not entitled to
mandamus relief on such grounds.1 In a related proceeding, docketed in this court
as cause number 14-26-00855-CV, we conditionally granted mandamus relief to
relator in part and directed the county court to vacate the final judgment for lack of
jurisdiction because the case had been removed to federal court when the judgment
was signed. Therefore, that issue in this proceeding is moot. See In re JB Motor
Carrier, LLC, No. 14-25-00408-CV, 2025 WL 1710607, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] June 19, 2025, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op.)
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.”).

3
(“Because relators received the relief requested in their petition for writ of
mandamus, the petition is now moot and must be dismissed.”). We deny relator’s
petition for writ of mandamus in part and dismiss it in part. We also deny her
motion for temporary relief and dismiss her motion to consolidate as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Hart, and Bridges.