In Re Kyle Mitchell Odom v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 9, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00653-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00653-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE KYLE MITCHELL ODOM

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Silva, Cron, and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva1

Kyle Mitchell Odom filed a pro se pleading in this Court seeking an order

authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive application for writ of

habeas corpus filed by a person in state custody. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (providing federal

remedies for persons in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court). Odom does

not have a pending appeal in this Court, and he does not reference a final judgment that

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). is subject to appeal or a separately appealable interlocutory order. Accordingly, we

liberally construe his pro se pleading as a petition for writ of mandamus. See generally

TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2 (governing the perfection of appeal in criminal cases), 52 (describing

the requirements for filing original proceedings); In re Castle Tex. Prod. Ltd. P’ship, 189

S.W.3d 400, 403 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (“The function

of the writ of mandamus is to compel action by those who by virtue of their official or

quasi-official positions are charged with a positive duty to act.”).

Odom failed to file an appendix or record in support of his request for relief;

however, Odom references trial court cause number SA-25-CA-0018FB in the United

States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division. Article V, § 6

of the Texas Constitution delineates the appellate jurisdiction of the courts of appeals,

and states that the courts of appeals “shall have such other jurisdiction, original and

appellate, as may be prescribed by law.” TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6(a). The main source of

original jurisdiction for the courts of appeals is provided by § 22.221 of the Texas

Government Code. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221; In re Cook, 394 S.W.3d 668,

671 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2012, orig. proceeding). In pertinent part, this section provides that

we may issue writs of mandamus against specified judges “in the court of appeals district”

and any “writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.

§ 22.221(a), (b), (c)(1–2).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus,

is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over Odom’s complaint. Specifically, we lack

jurisdiction to issue a writ against a federal judge. See id. § 22.221(b), (c)(1–2); see also

2 In re Davis, No. 08-25-00058-CV, 2025 WL 396700, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Feb. 4,

2025, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); In re Yeomans, No. 13-24-00170-CV, 2024 WL

1473755, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Apr. 4, 2024, orig. proceeding)

(mem. op.); In re Newsome, No. 03-13-00009-CV, 2013 WL 238713, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Austin Jan. 18, 2013, orig. proceeding [mand. denied]) (mem. op.). In this regard, Odom

does not assert that the requested relief is necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction.

See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a). Further, we lack jurisdiction over any aspect of

federal habeas corpus proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); see also Ex parte Allen,

No. 10-23-00241-CR, 2023 WL 5434493, at *1 (Tex. App.—Waco Aug. 23, 2023, no pet.)

(mem. op., not designated for publication). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of

mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.

CLARISSA SILVA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 9th day of December, 2025.