In Re Quintilya Thomas v. the State of Texas

Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)·Decided March 20, 2026·No. 08-26-00120-CV·Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

petition. Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(a), (b). Although Rule 52.10(b) authorizes this Court to grant

temporary relief, it implicitly requires a petition to invoke our jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P.

52.10(b); see also In re Hicks, 524 S.W.3d 307 (Tex. App.—Waco 2016, orig. proceeding) (finding

an emergency motion filed without a petition to be “premature” and dismissing the motion); In re

Kelleher, 999 S.W.2d 51, 52 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1999, orig. proceeding) (“Implicit within this

rule is the need for a petition to be filed before the court can grant emergency relief.”); In re

Nonamé, No. 03-25-00937-CV, 2025 WL 3491569, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Dec. 5, 2025, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.) (dismissing for want of jurisdiction a motion for temporary relief without

a petition).

Because Relator has not commenced an original proceeding, we lack jurisdiction over her

motion seeking emergency relief. We dismiss the motion for want of jurisdiction without prejudice

to refiling after a petition for writ of mandamus has been filed.

MARIA SALAS MENDOZA, Chief Justice

March 20, 2026

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In Re Quintilya Thomas v. the State of Texas, (Tex. Ct. App. 2026).

In Re Quintilya Thomas v. the State of Texas (In Re Quintilya Thomas v. the State of Texas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Kelleher
999 S.W.2d 51 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1999)
In re Hicks
524 S.W.3d 307 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2016)