Mandamus Jurisdiction Over Court Reporter | In re Farley (2026)

In re Ellis Farley, 06-26-00095-CV, August 31, 2026.

On appeal from 76th Judicial District Court of Titus County, Texas

Synopsis

The Texarkana Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief because it lacked mandamus jurisdiction over the official court reporter absent a showing that relief against the reporter was necessary to enforce the court’s own jurisdiction. The petition also failed independently because the relator did not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3 and 52.7, including the requirement to provide a properly supported petition and a certified or sworn mandamus record.

Relevance to Family Law

For Texas family-law litigators, this opinion is a pointed reminder that record problems in custody, divorce, support, and property cases do not excuse mandamus defects. If you need emergency appellate intervention over transcripts, in-chambers interviews, or access to a reporter’s record in a SAPCR or divorce proceeding, you must frame jurisdiction correctly and build a Rule 52-compliant record. In fast-moving temporary-orders and child-custody disputes, that procedural discipline can determine whether meaningful appellate review remains available.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The relator, appearing pro se, challenged what he described as an “unsigned temporary final” child-custody order and sought mandamus relief against both the district judge and the court’s official court reporter. He asked the court of appeals to compel immediate preparation and delivery of prior hearing transcripts, bench remarks, and what he described as “unrecorded audio records” of in-chambers minor-child interviews, all without cost under an asserted Rule 145 inability-to-pay status.

The Sixth Court of Appeals focused on two features of the petition. First, the relator was seeking mandamus relief directly against an official court reporter, a non-judge. Second, the petition was procedurally deficient. It lacked required components such as a table of contents and index of authorities, included factual assertions unsupported by citations to competent evidence, and was not accompanied by a certified or sworn mandamus record containing material documents from the underlying proceeding.

After filing the petition, the relator attempted to supplement the record with a filing that accused court personnel of concealment and obstruction. But the court noted that Rule 52.7(b) permits additional materials only after a mandamus record has been filed, which had not occurred. Even then, the supplemental filing still did not include actual competent evidence—only descriptions, recollections, and indices of supposed exhibits rather than the exhibits themselves.

Issues Decided

• Whether Texas Government Code Section 22.221 authorizes a court of appeals to issue mandamus against an official court reporter when the relator does not show that such relief is necessary to enforce the court of appeals’ jurisdiction.
• Whether a mandamus petition fails when the relator does not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3 and 52.7 by providing the required petition contents and a certified or sworn mandamus record.
• Whether an attempted “supplemental record” can cure the failure to file a proper original mandamus record when the submission contains assertions and exhibit descriptions rather than competent proof.

Rules Applied

The court relied principally on Texas Government Code Section 22.221. Under subsection (b), a court of appeals may issue writs of mandamus against certain judges within its district. Under subsection (a), its writ power as to others is narrower and extends only when necessary to enforce the court’s jurisdiction. That distinction was central because an official court reporter is not among the judicial officers against whom routine mandamus jurisdiction exists.

The court also applied Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3 and 52.7. Rule 52.3 prescribes the contents of a mandamus petition, including a table of contents, an index of authorities, and a statement of facts supported by citations to competent evidence in the appendix or record. Rule 52.7 requires the relator to file a certified or sworn copy of every material document filed in the underlying proceeding and any properly authenticated evidence necessary for the court to decide the request for extraordinary relief.

The opinion cited Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding), for the relator’s burden to furnish a sufficient record, and In re Norvell, 610 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding) (per curiam), for the basic proposition that a court must have a proper record before reaching the merits. On jurisdiction over non-judicial actors, the court relied on In re Shugart, 528 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017, orig. proceeding), which recognizes that mandamus against officials such as court reporters is unavailable unless necessary to enforce the appellate court’s jurisdiction.

Application

The court began with jurisdiction, and that sequencing matters. The relator wanted the court of appeals to compel the official court reporter to prepare and deliver materials from prior proceedings. But a court reporter is not a district judge, statutory county court judge, statutory probate court judge, or county court judge within the meaning of Section 22.221(b). That meant the court could act against the reporter only if doing so was necessary to enforce its own jurisdiction under Section 22.221(a). On the record presented, there was no showing of that necessity. The petition asserted grievance, urgency, and alleged obstruction, but it did not connect those allegations to a concrete jurisdictional need of the appellate court.

The court then turned to the petition’s procedural defects, and it treated those defects as independently fatal. The relator’s petition did not include required structural components under Rule 52.3, and, more importantly, it did not support factual assertions with citations to competent evidence. The absence of a certified or sworn mandamus record under Rule 52.7 was especially damaging. Mandamus is record-driven. Assertions about file-marked pleadings, reporter contests, hearings, or communications with court personnel are not self-proving, no matter how specific the narrative may be.

The attempted supplemental filing did not salvage the petition. The court emphasized that Rule 52.7(b) contemplates supplementation after a record is filed, not in place of one. And even putting timing aside, the relator still did not submit actual evidence. An index of exhibits is not an exhibit. A sworn recollection is not a substitute for certified or sworn copies of material filings or authenticated documentary proof when such proof is required to establish entitlement to extraordinary relief. The court’s treatment of the supplement reinforces a recurring appellate lesson: precision in accusation does not substitute for admissible support in the mandamus record.

Holding

The court held that it lacked mandamus jurisdiction over the official court reporter because Texas Government Code Section 22.221 does not authorize routine mandamus relief against a court reporter, and nothing in the petition or record showed that relief against the reporter was necessary to enforce the court of appeals’ jurisdiction. On that basis, mandamus relief against the reporter was unavailable.

The court also held that the petition independently failed because the relator did not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3 and 52.7. The relator omitted required petition components, failed to support factual statements with citations to competent evidence, and did not provide a certified or sworn mandamus record containing the material documents necessary to evaluate the request for relief. Those defects prevented the court from reaching the merits and warranted denial of the petition.

Practical Application

Family-law litigators should read In re Farley as a procedural warning, especially in emergency custody and temporary-orders practice. When a transcript delay, missing record, or refusal by court staff threatens your ability to seek appellate relief, the instinct may be to direct the mandamus at whoever appears to be causing the bottleneck. This opinion reminds us that the jurisdictional target matters. Relief against a court reporter is not ordinarily within the court of appeals’ mandamus power unless the requested writ is necessary to protect or effectuate that court’s jurisdiction.

That point has real force in SAPCRs and divorces. In a relocation dispute, emergency modification, protective-order-related custody hearing, or disproportionate-division property fight, counsel may need a reporter’s record quickly to challenge temporary rulings, preserve a restricted appellate timetable, or support a mandamus directed at the trial judge. If the problem lies with record preparation or access, the petition should be drafted with careful attention to whether the real relief sought is against the judge, whether the judge has been asked to rule, and whether any requested action involving the reporter is tied directly to preserving appellate jurisdiction.

The opinion also reinforces that appellate urgency does not relax Rule 52. In family cases, lawyers often operate under compressed timelines, incomplete clerk files, sealed child-related materials, and practical barriers to obtaining certified documents. Even so, the relator must present a mandamus record with certified or sworn material documents and competent evidentiary support for the factual narrative. If in-chambers interviews, bench conferences, or oral rulings matter, counsel should think ahead in the trial court about making a record, obtaining rulings, requesting the reporter’s presence where authorized, and creating documentary proof of every request, refusal, contest, and order.

Practically speaking, Farley is most useful in three common settings:

• When opposing counsel seeks emergency appellate relief based on an allegedly missing family-law record, this case provides a clean procedural response if the petition is unsupported or misdirected.
• When you need mandamus relief yourself, it is a checklist case for verifying jurisdiction, petition contents, and record sufficiency before filing.
• When cost-waiver issues arise under Rule 145 in transcript requests, it underscores the need to include actual file-marked Rule 145 materials, contests, rulings, and correspondence in certified or sworn form rather than relying on narrative descriptions.

Checklists

Mandamus Jurisdiction Analysis

• Identify the actual target of the requested writ before drafting the petition.
• Confirm whether the relief is sought against a judge or a non-judicial officer such as a court reporter or clerk.
• If relief is sought against a non-judicial officer, articulate specifically why that relief is necessary to enforce the court of appeals’ jurisdiction.
• Tie the requested relief to a pending or threatened impairment of appellate jurisdiction, not merely to convenience or fairness.
• Consider whether the judge must first be asked to rule on the underlying record-access or transcript issue.

Rule 52 Petition Compliance

• Include a table of contents.
• Include an index of authorities.
• State the issues presented clearly and narrowly.
• Provide a statement of facts that is concise, non-argumentative, and supported by citations to competent evidence.
• Ensure the petition’s argument cites the governing statutes, rules, and controlling mandamus authority.
• Verify that all factual assertions in the petition correspond to materials actually included in the appendix or record.

Building the Mandamus Record in Family Cases

• Obtain certified or sworn copies of every material document filed in the trial court.
• Include the relevant pleadings, motions, notices, orders, docket entries, and reporter communications.
• Include any Rule 145 statement of inability to afford costs, contest, and ruling, if cost waiver is part of the dispute.
• Include written transcript requests and written responses from the court reporter.
• Authenticate emails, portal notices, and text communications if they are necessary to prove obstruction or refusal.
• If the complaint involves an oral ruling, include any available signed order, docket notation, hearing notice, or transcript excerpt establishing what occurred.
• Do not rely on exhibit indices, summaries, or recollections as substitutes for the underlying proof.

Preserving Family-Law Appellate Remedies

• In temporary-orders and custody hearings, request a court reporter in advance and confirm the request in writing.
• Make a written record of any denied access to hearings, exhibits, or child-interview materials.
• Seek a clear ruling from the trial court on record-preparation disputes before pursuing mandamus.
• Move quickly when emergency child-related relief is involved, but do not file before the Rule 52 record is assembled.
• If supplementation becomes necessary, file a proper original record first and then supplement with authenticated materials under Rule 52.7(b).
• Remember that allegations of systemic unfairness or concealment will not substitute for evidentiary support.

Responding to a Defective Mandamus Petition

• Challenge jurisdiction if the relator seeks mandamus against a court reporter, clerk, or other non-judicial actor without showing necessity to enforce appellate jurisdiction.
• Highlight noncompliance with Rule 52.3, including omitted sections and unsupported fact statements.
• Object to the absence of a certified or sworn mandamus record under Rule 52.7.
• Point out when the relator relies on descriptions of documents rather than the documents themselves.
• Emphasize that a supplemental filing cannot cure the complete failure to file an initial proper record.

Citation

In re Ellis Farley, No. 06-26-00095-CV, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Texarkana Aug. 31, 2026, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~20d72ad4-de29-4355-83ff-8b4562b0b140~~