In Re Felicia Nicole Jones v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)
• Decided: May 7, 2026
• Docket: 01-26-00447-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinion issued May 7, 2026

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-26-00447-CV ——————————— IN RE FELICIA NICOLE JONES, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Felicia Nicole Jones, a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order,

and proceeding pro se, filed a document with this Court captioned a “Writ of

Mandamus to a Motion to Stay the Mandate Pending the Filing of a Petition for a

Writ of Certiorari Will Not Automatically Rendered Moot.” This filing complains

that, on April 28, 2026, this Court denied her “Motion to Stay the Mandate Pending the Filing of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari” in appellate case number

01-25-00867-CV.1

Relator’s filing asserts that a “[w]rit of [m]andamus from [t]he Texas First

[C]ourt of [A]ppeals should issue” from the Court’s “denial of [relator’s] [Motion

to] Stay the Mandate” in appellate case number 01-25-00867-CV. We therefore

construe her filing as a petition for writ of mandamus and dismiss relator’s petition

for lack of jurisdiction.

An appellate court may issue a writ of mandamus against judges of a district,

statutory county, statutory probate, or a county court in the court of appeals district.

See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b). Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus

requests that this Court issue a writ of mandamus against this Court. However, this

Court lacks mandamus jurisdiction over an appellate court, specifically, itself. See

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b)–(c). Jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus

against a court of appeals or a justice of a court of appeals lies with the Supreme

Court of Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.002(a).

Additionally, the Clerk of this Court may not file an original proceeding in a

civil matter presented by a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order unless: (1)

1 Relator’s direct appeal was dismissed by this Court on January 8, 2026 because relator, a vexatious litigant subject to a pre-filing order, failed to establish she obtained the necessary permission before filing the appeal. See Jones v. Louis Vuitton, No. 01-25-00867-CV, 2026 WL 59737, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 8, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).

2 relator first obtains an order from the local administrative judge permitting the filing

or (2) relator is appealing from a pre-filing order declaring her a vexatious litigant.

See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 11.103(a). In her petition for writ of

mandamus, relator did not provide any indication that she obtained permission prior

to filing her original proceeding.

Accordingly, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to grant the mandamus

relief requested by relator. We therefore dismiss relator’s petition for writ of

mandamus for lack of jurisdiction. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Guiney.