Albert E. Nixon v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 26, 2025
• Docket: 01-25-00524-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued August 26, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-00524-CV ——————————— ALBERT E. NIXON, Appellant V. CAPITOL ONE BANK (USA), N.A., Appellee

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 4 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1253812

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On June 4, 2025, the justice court rendered judgment against appellant, Albert

E. Nixon. On June 26, 2025, Nixon, acting pro se, appealed the judgment to county court where that appeal remains pending.1 See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE

§ 51.001(a) (providing that case tried in justice court may be appealed to county

court); TEX. R. CIV. P. 506.1–.3 (addressing appeals from justice court to county

court).

On July 10, 2025, Nixon filed a document in county court addressed to this

Court entitled “Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Final Judgment and Notice of

Appeal,” challenging the justice court’s judgment. Construing the document as a

notice of appeal, the county clerk assigned the instant appeal to this Court.

A court of appeals does not have jurisdiction over a judgment from a justice

court. Lynch v. Atkinson, No. 01-24-00177-CV, 2024 WL 3995445, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 30, 2024, no pet.) (mem. op.). This Court’s civil

appellate jurisdiction is set by statute over “cases within its district of which the

district courts or county courts have jurisdiction when the amount in controversy or

the judgment rendered exceeds $250, exclusive of interest and costs.” TEX. GOV’T

1 We take judicial notice of the county court’s records showing that Nixon appealed the justice court’s judgment to county court and that the appeal remains pending in county court. See TEX. R. EVID. 201(b)(2) (providing that court may “judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned”); Freedom Commc’ns, Inc. v. Coronado, 372 S.W.3d 621, 624 (Tex. 2012) (citing Rule 201 and taking judicial notice of relevant facts outside record to determine jurisdiction); see also Harris v. Hous. Methodist Hosp., No. 01-17- 00544-CV, 2018 WL 3233329, at *5 n.3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 3, 2018, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (taking judicial notice of district clerk’s records in another case involving appellant). 2 CODE § 22.220(a). “Consequently, a justice court judgment cannot be appealed

directly to the court of appeals.” Whisenhunt v. Hill, No. 02-12-00310-CV, 2012 WL

3733868, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Aug. 30, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.)

(“Appeals from justice courts generally lie either in the county or the district court.”).

On July 24, 2025, the Clerk of this Court notified the parties that the Court

might dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction unless a response was filed within

10 days demonstrating that this Court has jurisdiction over the justice court’s

judgment. In his response, Nixon asserts that, based on “equity and fairness,” the

appeal should not be dismissed. And he asserts that he filed the appeal in “good

faith.”2 Nixon’s response does not demonstrate that we have jurisdiction. Our

jurisdiction is statutorily set, and we have no discretion to exercise jurisdiction over

an appeal from justice court. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.220(a).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Caughey and Johnson.

2 Nixon alternatively asks that we transfer his appeal “to the appropriate court (e.g., County Court or proper appellate forum).” As discussed, Nixon’s appeal from the justice court’s judgment remains pending in the county court at Case No. 1253812. 3