Summary
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals of Texas dismissed without prejudice Juan Pardo’s pro se petition for writ of mandamus. The court held that a civil litigant may not proceed partly through counsel and partly pro se because Pardo had attorneys of record. The court lifted the stay previously imposed and denied the remaining requested relief as applicable.
Holdings
- In a civil case, a party is not entitled to representation partly by counsel and partly pro se.
- Mandamus relief was unavailable because the proceeding was dismissed without prejudice based on Pardo's improper hybrid representation.
Questions Presented
- Whether Pardo could proceed partly pro se while represented by counsel in a civil case.
- Whether the mandamus proceeding should be dismissed on that basis.
- Whether the previously imposed stay of the challenged writs should be lifted.
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (11)
- In re Ill. Nat’l Ins., 685 S.W.3d 826, 834 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding)(followed)
- In re Liberty Cnty. Mut. Ins., 679 S.W.3d 170, 174 (Tex. 2023) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)(followed)
- In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding)(followed)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding)(followed)
- In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)(followed)
- In re S.V., 599 S.W.3d 25, 44 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2017, pet. denied) (op. on reh'g)(followed)
- In re H.O., 555 S.W.3d 245, 247 n.1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, pet. denied)(followed)
- Smith v. Smith, 22 S.W.3d 140, 153 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.)(followed)
- In re Sondley, 990 S.W.2d 361, 362 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999, orig. proceeding) (per curiam)(followed)
- Posner v. Dall. Cnty. Child Welfare Unit of Tex. Dep't of Human Servs., 784 S.W.2d 585, 588 (Tex. App.—Eastland 1990, writ denied)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 11.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…