Relator Nelda Johnson, representing herself, says her son died on March 31, 2025; she found him, reported his death to police, spoke to the coroner, was the only person on the funeral home's contract, paid for the funeral, and gave the funeral director and coroner his doctor's information, so she says she is legally the informant on his death certificate.¹ When she received the certificate it listed someone else as informant and contained other inaccurate information, including her name, and the funeral home did not return her calls.² She says the Vital Statistics Unit of the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) told her not to submit a VS-172 correction form because she would need a court order, and that no one there, or among the representatives, courts, attorneys, and governor's office she contacted, could say which court, forms, or process would produce one.³

This is an original proceeding for writ of mandamus brought directly in this Court against DSHS Commissioner Dr. Jennifer Shuford and Dr. Tara Das, the State Registrar and Director of Vital Statistics, in their official capacities; Johnson filed it November 3, 2025, and also asked for injunctive and declaratory relief.¹ The Court ordered a response, which DSHS filed.² After the response, Johnson reported that an assistant attorney general emailed her forms in January 2026 for filing in another court, but the courts she checked with had no process for them.³ The Court denied the petition on May 15, 2026, with Justice Young, joined by Justices Devine and Busby, concurring in the denial.⁴

Original proceeding (petition for writ of mandamus) by a pro se relator, denied May 15, 2026, with a concurring opinion by Justice Young, joined by Justices Devine and Busby.⁵

Johnson frames three questions:¹ 1. Whether a court order is needed to correct inaccurate information on a loved one's death certificate. 2. What court or paperwork a Texas voter needs to submit to change inaccurate information on a loved one's death certificate. 3. What the remedy is for a funeral home that submits inaccurate information on the death certificate.

DSHS presents one issue: whether Johnson has established her standing to sue two DSHS officials and has overcome their sovereign immunity.²

Johnson says mandamus is proper when the relator has no adequate remedy and the act compelled is ministerial, and may compel a public official to perform ministerial acts.¹ DSHS says mandamus requires a clear abuse of discretion and no adequate remedy by appeal, and that standing is a constitutional prerequisite to suit.²

Whether DSHS has a ministerial duty to amend the death certificate.

Relator (Johnson): Health and Safety Code Section 191.028 requires the department to maintain procedures for amending vital records and gives no discretion to ignore a supported request, the certificate contains inaccurate informant information in violation of Section 193.005 and due process, Vital Statistics refused to act or gave her no process, forms, or court, and she has no alternative remedy, so only this Court can compel the agency.¹

Real Parties in Interest (DSHS officials): DSHS's ministerial duty under the statute has not been triggered because Johnson has never submitted a VS-172 form; to trigger it she must obtain a court order in a probate court, justice court, or district court and then submit the form with a certified copy of the order.²

Standing and sovereign immunity.

Real Parties in Interest (DSHS officials): Johnson has no injury traceable to DSHS, because the inaccurate information was supplied by the funeral home, and DSHS is a state agency whose officials sued in their official capacities share its sovereign immunity, which Section 191.028 does not waive.³ DSHS also says Johnson has not proven that she correctly served the officials, and asks the Court to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.⁴

Relator (Johnson): Her petition invokes the Court's mandamus authority over public officials who fail to perform ministerial duties, and says the agency's inaction violates both the statute and due process.⁵

Johnson argued that she has exhausted every avenue, that no process exists to correct the certificate, and that a court order from this Court is her only remedy.¹

None

Reasoning

The Court gave no reasons for denying the petition; the only writing is Justice Young's concurrence, which is the view of three Justices, not a holding.¹ Taking Johnson's allegations as true, he was concerned about the government's interactions with her at a difficult time, wrote that her access to the courts "ought not be necessary" and, if it is, should be "much less onerous," and described her experience as "Kafkaesque".² He addressed neither the merits of her reading of Texas law nor assigned blame, but noted that DSHS did not challenge her allegations or deny she should have been listed as informant, yet argued standing, and immunity rather than assuring the Court it would help.³

He concurred in the denial because he had faith that the lower courts and DSHS would work with Johnson to accomplish her "very modest goals," said she could file another petition if no solution came, and hoped DSHS and the Attorney General's office would help her through whatever regulatory maze she faced.⁴ He added that the case illustrates the continuing problem of access to the civil-justice system for people with seemingly minor problems and suggested that a pro bono lawyer could help.⁵

Disposition

Petition for writ of mandamus denied on May 15, 2026; the same day the Court dismissed as moot her motions for default judgment, regarding default filing fees, and to dismiss a claim.

Vote Breakdown

Justice Young concurred in the denial of the petition, joined by Justice Devine and Justice Busby.⁶