In Re Lance Davis v. the State of Texas

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

§ No. 08-25-00060-CV IN RE § AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING LANCE DAVIS § IN MANDAMUS Relator. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On February 5, 2025, Relator Lance Davis filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting

this Court instruct the district judge of the United State District Court for the Western District of

Texas (El Paso Division), in cause number EP24CV0105, to rule on a pending motion to dismiss.

This is Davis’s second petition in this Court in which he advances the same request. Very recently,

on January 31, 2025, he filed a nearly identical petition for writ of mandamus in which he sought

the same relief. We dismissed that earlier petition after concluding we lacked subject matter

jurisdiction over a mandamus petition directed to a federal judge. See In re Davis, No. 08-25-

00058-CV, 2025 WL 396700, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Feb. 4, 2025, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

In this latest petition, Davis merely alters the certificate of service; but otherwise, he seeks

the same relief as he did before. We reiterate here that this Court may only issue a writ of mandamus if it has authority to do so. See In re Murphy, No. 08-02-00172-CR, 2002 WL 1729945,

at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso July 25, 2002, no pet.) (citing Greenville v. State, 798 S.W.2d 361,

362–63 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1990, no pet.)). A State court—like this Court—has no writ

authority over a federal judge nor jurisdiction over a federal court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann.

§ 22.221; In re Murphy, No. 08-02-00172-CR, 2002 WL 1729945 (providing that state courts lack

jurisdiction over federal courts); In re Luevano, No. 01-13-00455-CR, 2013 WL 3243394, at *1

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 25, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same). Rather, Texas courts

of appeals may only issue 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 in

the court of appeals district.” See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b). In this proceeding, we

conclude as we did before, that nothing in the law allows for this Court to effectuate the relief

sought by Davis.

For this reason, we dismiss this petition for writ of mandamus for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. All pending motions are denied as moot. We discourage Davis from filing another

petition in this Court—on this same issue—and we place him on notice that any further filing of a

similar nature is subject to potential outright rejection or to an immediate dismissal for lack of

jurisdiction once filed.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

February 14, 2025

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