The Texas Court of Appeals has denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by William Travis Hawk Jr. and Rebecca Mae Hawk. This decision, issued on October 30, 2026, affects the couple's ongoing legal matters, specifically their requests for ADA accommodations and objections related to court costs. The court ruled that the Hawks did not meet the necessary criteria to warrant the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.

The case, identified by docket number 13-26-00741-CV, arose from the Hawks' claims that two respondents, presumably judges or court officials, had abused their discretion. The couple argued that the respondents failed to rule on their motion for ADA accommodations and an objection before an in-person hearing. They also claimed that their statement of inability to pay costs was denied without a hearing or any findings.

Background

William Travis Hawk Jr. and Rebecca Mae Hawk filed their petition for writ of mandamus on their own, without legal representation. They sought relief from the Texas Court of Appeals after their previous motions were not addressed by the trial court. The Hawks have been involved in multiple legal proceedings, including a related case noted in the court's opinion, Hawk v. Killebrew Inc., which highlights their ongoing disputes.

The couple's primary concerns included the lack of a ruling on their ADA accommodation requests and the denial of their financial hardship statement. They emphasized that these issues needed to be resolved before upcoming court hearings scheduled for November and December 2026. Their petition for a writ of mandamus was aimed at compelling the trial court to act on these pending motions.

The Ruling

The Texas Court of Appeals, comprising Justices Silva, Peña, and West, ultimately denied the Hawks' petition for a writ of mandamus. The court stated, "the relators have not met their burden to obtain relief." This ruling indicates that the court found the Hawks did not demonstrate that the trial court had clearly abused its discretion in failing to rule on their motions.

The court emphasized that a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, only available in limited circumstances. To succeed, the relators must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by appeal. In this case, the court concluded that the Hawks did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for the Hawks and their ongoing legal battles. By denying their petition for mandamus, the court reinforces the high standard that petitioners must meet to obtain such relief. It also highlights the importance of timely and proper filings in the legal process. The decision may serve as a precedent for similar cases where parties seek to compel courts to act on pending motions.

The outcome of this case may also impact how lower courts handle requests for accommodations and financial hardship statements in the future. The court's ruling suggests that simply filing a motion does not guarantee a response, and parties must ensure that their requests are clearly communicated and followed up appropriately.

What's Next

Following this ruling, the Hawks may consider their options for appeal, but the court's decision does not provide a clear path for further action. There may also be related cases pending that could influence their situation. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential appeals or additional legal actions the Hawks might pursue.