in Re Ralph O. Douglas

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed April 7, 2011. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-11-00279-CV ____________ IN RE RALPH O. DOUGLAS, Relator ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 129th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2001-55507 M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N On March 30, 2011, relator Ralph O. Douglas, a pro se inmate appearing in forma pauperis, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. Douglas complains that respondent, the Honorable Michael Gomez, presiding judge of the 129th District Court of Harris County, has failed to rule on his motion for contempt against Linda Porter in the underlying action styled Ralph O. Douglas v. Linda Porter and Marcelyn Curry, in cause number 2001-55507. The trial court signed a final judgment in cause number 2001-55507 on December 15, 2009. See Lehmann v. Har-Con, 39 S.W.3d 191, 200 (Tex. 2001) (holding that if the intent to finally dispose of the case is unequivocally expressed in the order, it is final and appealable). Douglas has perfected an appeal from the final judgment, and his appeal is currently pending before this court under our case number 14-10-00055-CV. Mandamus relief is available only to correct a clear abuse of discretion for which the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004). It is the relator’s burden to provide this court with a sufficient record to establish the right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992); Tex .R. App. P. 52.3. To establish an abuse of discretion by failing to rule on a motion, the relator must show that the trial court: (1) had a legal duty to rule; (2) was asked to rule; and (3) failed or refused to do so. See In re Dimas, 88 S.W.3d 349, 351 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, orig. proceeding). A party who complains about a trial court's refusal to rule on a pending motion must show that the matter was brought to the attention of the trial court and that the trial court failed or refused to rule. In re Hearn, 137 S.W.3d 681, 685 (Tex. App. —-San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding). Merely filing a matter with the district clerk is not sufficient to impute knowledge of the pending pleading to the trial court. See In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). First, Douglas has not established that the trial court had a legal duty to rule on his motion. The trial court lacks plenary jurisdiction to rule on Douglas’s motion. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b. Douglas has also failed to demonstrate that the motion for contempt was brought to the attention of the trial court. Accordingly, we deny Douglas’s petition for writ of mandamus. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Frost and Christopher.