The Texas Court of Appeals has denied a petition from Ellis Farley, who sought a writ of mandamus to compel the preparation of transcripts related to his child custody case. The court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction over the official court reporter involved and that Farley failed to meet necessary procedural requirements. This decision affects Farley’s ongoing custody dispute and highlights the importance of adhering to court rules.
Farley filed his petition on August 10, 2026, after expressing dissatisfaction with what he termed an “unsigned temporary final order” from the trial court. His request aimed to compel Judge Angela Saucier of the 76th Judicial District Court of Titus County, Texas, to provide him with verbatim transcripts of previous hearings and other records at no cost, citing his financial difficulties. The case has drawn attention due to its implications for access to court records in family law matters.
The dispute arose when Farley, representing himself, claimed he was unable to obtain necessary transcripts and documents to support his case. He alleged that court personnel had obstructed his access to these records, which he believed were critical for his appeal. The case reached the Texas Court of Appeals after Farley filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, a legal order that directs a lower court or government official to perform a specific act.
In its ruling, the court addressed two main issues. First, it stated that it lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against the official court reporter of the 76th Judicial District Court. The court explained, “We may issue a writ of mandamus only against a judge of a district, statutory county, statutory probate county, or county court in the court of appeals district.” This means that Farley’s request could not be directed at the court reporter, as the law does not allow such action.
Secondly, the court noted that Farley failed to comply with several procedural rules necessary for his petition to be considered. The court stated, “Farley bears the burden of providing this Court with a sufficient record to establish [his entitlement] to mandamus relief.” Specifically, he did not include required documents or evidence to support his claims. The court pointed out that Farley’s petition lacked a table of contents, an index of authorities, and a certified copy of relevant documents, which are essential for the court to review a mandamus petition.
Chief Justice Scott E. Stevens, along with Justices van Cleef and Rambin, delivered the opinion. The court emphasized that Farley’s allegations against the trial court and court reporter were not backed by the necessary evidence, stating, “Such allegations demand evidentiary support of some kind.” The court ultimately denied Farley’s petition for a writ of mandamus.
This ruling has significant implications for Farley as he continues to navigate his custody case. It underscores the importance of following procedural rules when seeking relief from a court. The decision also highlights the challenges individuals may face when representing themselves in legal matters, particularly in family law cases where access to documentation can be crucial.
Moving forward, Farley may need to consider how to gather the necessary documentation and evidence to support his claims if he wishes to pursue his custody case further. The court’s ruling serves as a reminder that compliance with legal procedures is essential for achieving favorable outcomes in court.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential for appeal. However, Farley’s ongoing custody case may still have related proceedings in the lower court, where he could continue to seek resolution regarding his child custody matters.