In Re Oscar Martinez v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 29, 2025
• Docket: 08-25-00171-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

§ IN RE No. 08-25-00171-CV § OSCAR MARTINEZ, AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING § Relator. IN MANDAMUS §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Oscar Martinez, has filed a petition for writ of prohibition, seeking (1) a writ of

prohibition preventing the trial court from continuing to proceed in the case in the court below,

(2) “a temporary stay on all actions against the petitioner,” and (3) a declaration “that any

enforcement actions taken without a verified contract or sworn affidavit of obligation are

unlawful and unenforceable.”

The jurisdiction of a court of appeals is limited to appellate matters “unless the legislature

confers original jurisdiction by statute.” Stokes v. State, No. 12-04-00166-CR, 2004 WL

1192806, at *1 (Tex. App.—Tyler May 28, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for

publication); see Tex. Const. art. V, § 6(a). “Regarding a writ of prohibition, section 22.221(a) of

the Government Code sets the limits of [a court of appeals’] jurisdiction to issue writs.” In re

Clarkson, No. 08-05-00299-CR, 2005 WL 2313768, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Sept. 22, 2005,

orig. proceeding) (not designated for publication) (per curiam) (citing Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a)). That statute grants a court of appeals authority to “issue a writ of mandamus and all

other writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the court.” Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a)

(emphasis added). Thus, § 22.221(a) provides a court of appeals with authority to issue a writ of

prohibition only “to protect the subject matter of an appeal or to prohibit an unlawful

interference with the enforcement of a superior court’s orders and judgments.” Holloway v. Fifth

Ct. of Appeals, 767 S.W.2d 680, 683 (Tex. 1989); see Tex. Emp.’s Ins. Ass’n v. Kirby, 152 S.W.2d

1073 (Tex. 1941); In re Drake, No. 05-21-00570-CV, 2021 WL 3073311, at *1 (Tex. App.—

Dallas July 20, 2021, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Here, there is “no pending proceeding before us for which the issuance of a writ of

prohibition would be necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.” Clarkson, 2005 WL 2313768, at *1.

Furthermore, Martinez does not seek a writ of prohibition “for the purpose of protecting or

enforcing any judgment of this Court, or for the purpose of protecting or enforcing its

jurisdiction.” Kirby, 152 S.W.2d at 1073. As a result, we lack jurisdiction to issue a writ of

prohibition in this proceeding. See, e.g., Kirby, 152 S.W.2d at 1073; Clarkson, 2005 WL

2313768, at *1.

Moreover, to the extent Martinez seeks a declaration “that any enforcement actions . . .

are unlawful and unenforceable,” we are not aware of any statute that provides us with

jurisdiction to render a declaratory judgment, and Martinez cites us to no such statute. See

Stokes, 2004 WL 1192806, at *1; Mosby, 2003 WL 21026733, at *2; see also In re Stephens, No.

14-19-00492-CV, 2019 WL 3121793, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] July 16, 2019, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.) (per curiam) (“A court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to render declaratory

judgments in original proceedings.”); Donald v. Carr, 407 S.W.2d 288, 291 (Tex. App.—Dallas

2 1966, orig. proceeding) (“Being an appellate court we do not have authority to render declaratory

judgments.”).

Accordingly, we dismiss this proceeding for want of jurisdiction. Any pending motions

are dismissed as moot.

MARIA SALAS MENDOZA, Chief Justice

July 29, 2025

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