In Re Kevin Nichols v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 30, 2025
• Docket: 08-25-00197-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

§ IN RE KEVIN NICHOLS, No. 08-25-00197-CR § Relator. AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING § IN MANDAMUS §

M E M O RAN D U M O PI N I O N

Contending that his rights were violated and that he was physically attacked, Relator Kevin

Nichols filed multiple letters in this Court asking to file various federal charges against (1)

Andrews County District Clerk Sherry Dushane; (2) the Honorable Judge Pool of the 109th

Judicial District Court; (3) County Attorney of Andrews County Sean Galloway; Assistant County

Attorney for Andrews County Scott Turner; (5) Andrews County Clerk Vicki Scott; and (6) the

Honorable Judge Jones of Andrews County.

Though it appears from the letters that Nichols has a pending criminal case in Andrews

County, none of the filings indicate a desire to appeal from a judgment or other appealable order

in his criminal prosecution. 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(b) (providing that in a criminal case, an

1 In one of his filings, Nichols provides a certified copy of a “State’s Motion to Revoke Bond and Deny Bail” filed in Andrew County Cause No. 23-0239 by Scott Turner on June 11, 2025. The document contains Nichols’s handwritten notes alleging that multiple statements in the document are “lies,” “deceit,” “fake,” and “retaliation.” Nichols does not allege in his filings that the trial court denied him habeas-corpus relief. Accordingly, we do not consider his filings to be an appeal from a ruling on a pretrial application for writ of habeas corpus. appeal is perfected by timely filing a sufficient notice of appeal); Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(c)(2) (stating

that notice is sufficient if it “shows the party’s desire to appeal from the judgment or other

appealable order”). For that reason, we construe Nichols’s letters as a petition for writ of

mandamus.

Nichols’s petition seeks to have the above-named individuals “arrested and charged” for

deprivation of rights under color of law and conspiracy to commit deprivation of rights, citing 18

U.S.C. § 242 (“Deprivation of rights under color of law”); 18 U.S.C. 241 (“Conspiracy against

rights”); 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Civil action for deprivation of rights”). Nichols seeks further charges

against Vicki Scott for violations of 28 U.S.C. § 2076. 2

As an intermediate appellate court, we have original and appellate jurisdiction only as

authorized by law. See Tex. Const. art. V § 6. The Texas Legislature authorizes state courts of

appeals to issue any writ necessary to enforce its jurisdiction as well as writs of mandamus

“agreeable to the principles of law regulating those writs” “against a judge of a district, statutory

county, statutory probate county, or county court” within its jurisdiction upon. Tex. Gov’t Code

Ann. § 22.221(a), (b).

The Court lacks original jurisdiction over this matter. No principles of law regulating the

writs we have authority to issue authorize this Court to compel the United States to initiate a

criminal prosecution or to adjudicate private attempts to enforce federal criminal statutes such as

those cited in Nichols’s filings against anyone.

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.

2 This statute was repealed in 1988.

2 LISA J. SOTO, Justice

July 30, 2025

Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)