In Re Matthew Thompson v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 12, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00055-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00055-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE MATTHEW THOMPSON

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

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

Relator Matthew Thompson filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus seeking to

compel the Justice of the Peace for Precinct 4 of Chambers County, Texas “to rule on the

pending motions related to the case, including motions concerning fraud, breach of

contract, theft by deception, tax evasion, exploitation of a disabled individual, and

damages.”

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). 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

an intermediate appellate court may issue writs of mandamus against specified judges in

its district and “all other writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.” TEX. GOV’T

CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b), (c).

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

is of the opinion that we lack jurisdiction over this original proceeding. First, relator seeks

mandamus relief arising from actions taken in Chambers County; however, Chambers

County is not located within our district and is instead located within the districts for the

First and Fourteenth Courts of Appeals. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.201(b)

(delineating the counties in the First Court of Appeals District); id. § 22.201(n)

(enumerating the counties in the Thirteenth Court of Appeals District); id. § 22.201(o)

(listing the counties in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals District); In re Barnes, 528 S.W.3d

822, 823 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017, orig. proceeding) (discussing the territorial

jurisdiction required for mandamus relief). Second, a justice of the peace is not one of the

judges over whom we possess mandamus jurisdiction. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.

§ 22.221(b), (c); In re Resendez, 501 S.W.3d 680, 681 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2016,

orig. proceeding) (per curiam); see also In re Kottke, No. 03-24-00764-CV, 2024 WL

2 4885837, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 26, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (collecting

cases). Third, relator has neither argued nor shown that a writ of mandamus is necessary

to enforce our jurisdiction. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a); In re Barnes, 528 S.W.3d

at 823. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for lack of jurisdiction.

CLARISSA SILVA Justice

Delivered and filed on the 12th day of February, 2025.