                                       In The

                                Court of Appeals
                    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
                              _________________
                               NO. 09-13-00319-CV
                              _________________


                      IN RE TOM RICHARD DOYLE JR.

________________________________________________________________________

                               Original Proceeding
________________________________________________________________________

                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

      Tom Richard Doyle Jr. seeks mandamus relief compelling the court to act on

motions and pleadings relating to the probate of Doyle’s father’s estate. The

probate court granted letters of administration to the real party in interest, Charles

Richard Jarvis. Doyle filed a combined application for determination of heirship,

will contest, petition to declare void Doyle’s previously-filed consent to the

appointment of Jarvis as independent administrator, and a request for an

accounting. Doyle complains that the probate court failed to act on his pleadings

within a reasonable time. See Safety-Kleen Corp. v. Garcia, 945 S.W.2d 268, 269

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, orig. proceeding) (A trial court abuses its

                                          1
discretion when it fails to rule on pretrial motions that have been properly

presented to it within a reasonable time.). Doyle also complains that the trial court

clerk is not providing requested documents in accordance with his request. See

Tex. Prob. Code Ann. § 33(j) (West 2003).

      Subsequently, Doyle informed this Court that the county judge transferred

the case to the county court at law. “[W]hen a matter in a probate proceeding is

contested, the judge of the county court may, on the judge’s own motion . . .

transfer the contested matter to the county court at law.” Tex. Prob. Code Ann. §

4E (West Supp. 2012). Accordingly, Doyle is not entitled to mandamus relief

against the respondent in this proceeding at this time. The petition for writ of

mandamus and all pending motions are therefore denied.

      PETITION DENIED.



                                                          PER CURIAM


Submitted on August 2, 2013
Opinion Delivered September 19, 2013

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.




                                         2
