In Re Aaron Nicholas Thomas v. the State of Texas

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00490-CV
__________________

IN RE AARON NICHOLAS THOMAS

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding
County Court at Law No. 3 of Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 25-09-14607
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Relator Aaron Nicholas Thomas

contends the trial court failed to perform its ministerial duty to issue service

documents for a petition for a protective order.1 The clerk of the court, not the judge,

has the duty to issue citation.2 See Tex. Fam. Code. Ann. § 82.042(a).

1
Relator submitted a mandamus petition that contains multiple format
deficiencies. He failed to correct the deficiencies after the Clerk of the Court
provided notice and an opportunity to cure. We use Rule 2, however, to look beyond
the deficiencies to reach an expeditious result. See Tex. R. App. P. 2.
2
An intermediate appellate court lacks mandamus jurisdiction over a County
Clerk unless necessary to protect the appellate court’s jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t
Code Ann. § 22.221.
1
Relator additionally complains that the trial court abused its discretion by

failing to authorize an alternative method of service. See generally Tex. R. Civ. P.

106(b). “To meet the due process threshold reflected in Rule 106(b)(2), a party

resorting to substitute service must produce evidence showing his selected method

was reasonably calculated to apprise a party of the suit.” JD Auto Corp. v. Bell, 697

S.W.3d 441, 457 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2024, no pet.). After reviewing the mandamus

petition and appendix, we conclude Relator has not shown that he provided the trial

court with sufficient support for his request for alternative service of citation.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P.

52.8(a). We deny Relator’s requests for temporary relief. See id. 52.10(a).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on January 7, 2026
Opinion Delivered January 8, 2026

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

2