In Re Aaron Nicholas Thomas v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00460-CV
__________________

IN RE AARON NICHOLAS THOMAS

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding
County Court at Law No. 3 of Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 23-09-14203
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REHEARING

The prior opinion issued by this Court on November 26, 2025, is withdrawn,

and this opinion is substituted.1

In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Aaron Nicholas Thomas asks this Court

to compel the trial court to vacate or reconsider a default order, signed May 23, 2025,

1
In his original petition for a writ of mandamus, Aaron Nicholas Thomas
complained the trial court in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship “refused to
act on ex parte filings, TROs, injunctions, enforcement, and motions to set aside
fraudulent orders.” We denied mandamus relief due to the Relator’s failure to
support his mandamus petition with an appendix, record, and certification. See Tex.
R. App. P. 52.3(j)-(k), 52.7(a). On December 1, 2025, Thomas filed a new
mandamus petition, which we are treating as a motion for rehearing.
1
modifying an order in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR). An

original proceeding for a writ of mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal. In re

Thomas, No. 09-15-00240-CV, 2015 WL 3756834, at *1 (Tex. App.—Beaumont

June 16, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). 2

We may issue a writ of mandamus to remedy a clear abuse of discretion by

the trial court when the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding);

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

conclude the Relator has not shown that he is entitled to mandamus relief.

Accordingly, we deny Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P.

52.8(a). All pending motions are denied.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on December 17, 2025
Opinion Delivered December 18, 2025

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

2
On November 18, 2025, Relator filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s
final modification order in Trial Cause Number 23-09-14203. Upon receiving the
notice of appeal, we docketed Appeal Number 09-25-00490 and notified the parties
that the notice of appeal was filed too late to perfect a regular appeal and did not
include the information required by Rule 25.1(d)(7) to perfect a restricted appeal
pursuant to Rule 30. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.1(d)(7), 30. As of this date, we have not
received an amended notice of appeal. See id. 25.1(g).
2