In Re Antonio G. Cantu v. the State of Texas

NUMBER 13-26-00337-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE ANTONIO G. CANTU

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Peña, and Fonseca
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Fonseca1

Relator Antonio G. Cantu filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus, a

supplemental petition for writ of mandamus, and a second supplemental petition for writ

of mandamus through which he asserts that the trial court2 abused its discretion by

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 2025CI22843 in the 37th District

Court of Bexar County, Texas. This original proceeding and two others arising from this same trial court
cause number were transferred to this Court by order of the Texas Supreme Court. See Misc. Docket No.
ordering relator “to remove all allegations that describe criminal conduct” from his

pleadings and by striking his pleadings for failing to do so.

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and 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); In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v.

Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). The relator must

ordinarily show that: (1) the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion; and (2) the

relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re Dallas HERO, 698 S.W.3d 242, 247

(Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36;

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;

see also Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992,

orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must

show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”).

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

the supplemental petition for writ of mandamus, the second supplemental petition for writ

of mandamus, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden

to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, supplemental

26-9027 (Tex. Apr. 23, 2026). We dispose of the other two original proceedings by separate memorandum
opinions issued on this same date. See In re Cantu, No. 13-26-00336-CV, 2026 WL _____, at *_ (Tex.
App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Apr. __, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Cantu, No. 13-26-00338-
CV, 2026 WL _____, at *_ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Apr. __, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem.
op.).

2
petition for writ of mandamus, and second supplemental petition for writ of mandamus.

YSMAEL D. FONSECA
Justice

Delivered and filed on the
1st day of May, 2026.

3