in Re Taneisha Pauliono

NUMBER 13-21-00370-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE TANEISHA PAULIONO

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina Memorandum Opinion by Justice Tijerina1

Pro se relator Taneisha Pauliono filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the above- referenced cause through which she generally asserts that the trial court2 abused its discretion by refusing to sign a final judgment and instead transferring the case to a different court. Relator requests that we direct the trial court to abate all proceedings in County Court at Law No. 4 of Cameron County, Texas; sign the judgment “rendered” on August 17, 2021 by the judge of the County Court at Law No. 2 of Cameron County, Texas; and abate the proceedings in County Court at Law No. 4 pending “final resolution,” including a “newly refiled original complaint with Cause No. 2021-DCL-05313” in the Cameron County District Court.

Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem. Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy on appeal. In re USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (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 v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts with disregard for guiding rules or principles or when it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner. In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d at 840. We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review against the detriments. In re Acad., Ltd., 625 S.W.3d 19, (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus and the foregoing standard of review, is of the opinion that the relator has not met her burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

JAIME TIJERINA Justice Delivered and filed on the

29th day of October, 2021.