James Brickley v. Nicholas Watson

Opinion

NO. 15-25-00118-CV

IN THE FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

at AUSTIN FILED IN’ 15th COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS JAMES BRICKLEY Appellant, SEP 09 202 CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Vv. CLERK NICHOLAS WALTON, Appellee. Appealed from the 440th Court of Coryell County, Texas APPELLANT'S BRIEF JAMFS RRICKLEY Appellant pro se

3201 FM 929

Gatesville, Texas 76597

JAMES BRICKLEY PRO SE

APPELLANT REQUESTS ORAL ARGUMENT

JAMES BRICKLEY, Appellant,

Vie

NICHOLAS WALTON, Appellee.

IDENTITY OF PARTIES & COUNSEL

Appellant, James Brickley, pro se, 3201 FM 929, Gatesville, Texas

76597.

Appellee, Nicholas Walton, represented ny Jacob I. Pons, Asst. Attorney General, Texas State Rar No. 24139435, Office of the Attorney General, P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station, Austin, Texas 78711. phone: (512)-463-2080 fax: (512)-370-9814, email: jacob.po

ns@oag.texas.gov

TABLE OF CONTENTS page IDENTITY OF PARTIES... ccc ccccc es uucssesccveccceeees beecceeeuaaas i INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. oo? © ®@ oO BD Oe ee oc @ oe oo eG @ @ oo © ® @ 0 8 © BO oO oe eo8 iit

STATEMENT OF THE CASE. cece.

eo ee ere ade oe Heme oe eoresoeaoevseosee ee woo LV

STATEMENT ON ORAL ARGUMENT..... ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIFV......

STATEMENT OF FACTS....

OO oC EE CoE Eo oo ea ee Hoo eve ooo eT eC oC eee CDE eveal

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT... cccecces

ARGUMENT... ccc ccc cece eens

coor ee eo ee cesar ooooe en ossoeeevoeescaccveecell

Issue 1: The trial court erred in dismissing the case with Prejudice. .,.sceccs0ee em ee oeeoceeveaneeoeeovneeseae oo 86 © & coe oa

Issue 2: The trial court erred in dismissing the case for jurisdiction......... nome

coco ooo oe Does eee ee Dood oD eo eed

Issue 3; The trial court erred by not first taking up the

matter of plaintiff's request for defense attorney to show authority to act.......ee. wawe nee ses save Cae eans 7

CONCLUSION. cc. ccscccccscces

eo ee eo @ wo @ ° ° e ° oe ooo oe eo eon 9 PRAYER. 2.2.6. 2 eo 0 © cee oe eee ee ooe eee HR eO HT HDO HELO KDHE ORD H EOD HOO HR OD oo ee oe 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. eo ¢@ 8B eo @ oo ee eo eo wee wow a oe © vo oe eo ooo oa dD eoaae 210

APPENDIX. wccccsevccessvnccsacecsensevescerccuce

eevee ese reveeesell

Li INDEX OF AUTHORITIES page

CASES American Motorists Ins. v. Fodge, 63 S.'.3d 801,805 (Tex.2006)..4

Black v. Jackson, 82 S.1.3d 44,546 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2002, no

PCte )esvvvaccvvccseceseas

City of Carrollton v. Harlan, 180 S$.1W.3d 894,898 (Tex.App.= Dallas 2005, pet. denied).........

cee ecco cece see reco e cee ee ld

City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650,453 (Tex.1994)....9 Harris Cty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635,629 (Tex.2004)......4. ¢ fennel

Jansen v. Fitzpatrick, 14 S.W.3d 476,431 (Tex.App.-Houston P14th Dist.) 2000, no pet.decececcene

eoeoeeo 6 82 26 6 HB O&O & @ eoeoee9e fo oo J&J Sports Prods. v. JWJ Memt., Tne., 324 S,W.2d 892 (Tex. Anp.= Fort Woth 20190, no pet.).

60 G82 6B GOOF Oo EKBE HERE ea © © © ae a © 6 oe oO 7

Mazaheri v. Rosenblatt Law Firm, No.04-24-00453-CV, 2025 Tex.

App. LEXIS 4380 (Tex.App.- San Antonio June25,2925, no pet hoy... ccc cece eee

eo ee oo eco oo cee oer ooo oR OF e ooo oo odo os ew se ls

Sanchez v. Boone, 579 S.W.3d 526, 2019 Tex.App. LEXIS 4001 (Tex. App.-Houston 14th Dist. May16,2019 no pet.)..... wmawenencal

State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 629,642 (Tex.2007)

esecoevve es eave ee oD

Texas A&M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 $.W.3d &35,839-40 (Tex. 2007 Verses eee ec ccc cns cence ete eee e cree tect een een cee nee ce 598 Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex.2004)....cccccuee

Pa eee Coa eee ooo oor eee aac aseevrrverd

Thomas v. Long, 207 $.W.3d 334,338 (Tex.2006).sccceceucsccccacce 4

Webster v. Comm'n for Law Discipline, 704 SW.2d 478, 2094 Tex. LEXTS 1175 (Tex.2024)

"6 89 © e@ ®@ @ © eo oo eo oe oe cer eer sree erase rece cvcseed

STATUTES Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §134.005................. 2

Texas Government Code 8§407,021....

eee ero ee oo eo oe Fo oe eo oo eco ev eee

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 12

ee 000 92646862 Oo oHR oe eee ee reer eee eee R

Tex.Giv.Prac.& Rem.Gode 8101.9002,..

po oeee sree ee oH Ooo BHA Boe oe oe dee oo 9

Tex.Civ.Prac.& Rem.Code 8$134.001

~ © 2 6 © & o ee ee eee seo e ero o novo oecree ven

Tex.Civ.Prac.& Rem.Code 8134.00? INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CONT...

Tex.Civ.Prac.& Rem.Gode §41.003...... cee

ee # eee & © eo oe 6 oo ew oe Oe OMe Oe eo

Tex.Giv.Prac.& Rem.Code §§134.001-005

42 USGS $1983, vec vccccvssccsvecansnveeveevevvecece

1iia

oe@eoece oe eae se oe STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nature of the Case. Appellant sued apnellee for the theft of

hi

Nn

legal materials and violation to his civil rights in his indi- vidual capacity.(C.R. at 6-18)

Course of Proceedings. After service on the defendant of citat- ion (C.R. at 79 £80), Asst. Attorney Genderal, Jacob I. Pons filed a plea to jurisdiction (C.R. at 88-92), Brickley filed a motion for Mr. Pons to show authority to act (G.R. at 114-18). The court ordered Dismissal with prejudice for jurisdiction on June 11,2025 (C.R. at 122),(APP. TAR 1), unbeknownst to the plaintiff. Plain- tiff filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of Law. (G.R. pp. 149-41). The trial court has refused to file such find- ings of fact and conclusions of law, despite notice.

Trial Court Disposition. The trial court rendered judement on

the plea to jurisdiction on June 11,2025. (C.R. at 122).

Lv STATEMENT ON ORAL ARGUMENT

The Gourt should grant oral argument for the following reasons: Oral argument would give the Court a more complete understanding

of the facts of the case presented on apveal without the risk of

a complaint of appellee's affiliates withholding documents, answers, replys or motions as in Brickley v. Wagner, Cause number 15=-24-00- 057-GV3 and Brickley v. Mitchell, Cause number 15-25-00062-CYV, See

Tex.R.App.P. 29.1(c).

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Tssue 1: The trial court erred in dismissing the case with

prejudice.

Issue 2: The trial court erred in dismissing the case for jurisdiction.

Issue 3: The court erred by not first taking up the matter of plaintiff's request for defendant's attorney to show

authority to act.

Vv STATEMENT OF FACTS

Appellant, James Brickley, filed a suit against appellee, Nichoas Walton for theft of RBrickley's legal mail and as a result of the theft violation of Brickley's inmate civil rights by preventing him from effectively participating in a legal process, by way of denying him access to his legal work in a seperate case.

The theft occured on June 14,2023, during a bi-annual shakedown, where officers, led by Property Officer Nicholas Walton, took

legal work belonging to Brickley in violation of TDCI policy;

and refused to provide confiscation paperwork, in violation of

the same policy; after requesting the names of other officers involved who conducted the shake down and reasons for the confisc-= ation of legal work, Walton provided Brickley with no answers, in violation of TDCJ policy. Brickley filed a timely grievance and exhausted all administrative remedies, and filed a timely petition against Officer Nicholas Walton in his individual capacity.(C.R.

pp 12-17 and 6-18).

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Brickley's first argument challenges the lower court's decision to dismiss the case with prejudice. The trial court first erred

in dismissing the case as shown below, however, even in dismissing the case the court was without authority to do so with prejudice; where dismissal with prejudice would require either’a final deter- mination on the merits, or an opportunity to amend the petition

to add facts to overcome a claim of immunity. Neither of which

happened.

Appellee's attorney argued that Brickley was not entitled to leave y to amend because he belived there were no additional facts which could cure a jurisdictional defect by changing a ,»previouslypled claim for relief. (C.R. at 89). However, Brickley would not need

to do so at all because he claim relief under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 134.005, also known as the Texas

Theft Liability Act.(G.R. at 9). And for violations of his civil rights, he requested relief under the TCPRC as well.(Id.). Brickley also stated that all conditions precedent had been met prior to filing the suit.(C.R. at 10). When providing facts of the case, there need no other facts unless the court determines new facts need to be presented, and there need none to pursue a suit under the TTLA. Where the TTLA requires all elements of the theft to

be proven as per the Texas Penal Code. (C.R. at 8-9) (demonstrating the elements of theft have been met). If the petition were libera- lly construed in the plaintiff's favor, the lower court abused discretion in dismissing the case, and without leave to amend, or determination that the amendment of facts would not cure a supposed defect that bars suit, the trial court erred in dismissing the

suit with prejudice.

Second, the lower court abused discretion when dismissing the case for jurisdiction when there were facts in the petition which gtanted the court jurisdiction over the cse. (C.R. at 120).

In bringing a suit for a civil theft, pursuant:to the TTLA, all elements of the Texas Penal Code theft statute must be met in order to provide the petitioner relief.. See Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 134.001-005. In Brickley's petition, he stated facts which satisfied the elements of the penal code's theft statute.(C.R. at

6-8). This gave defendant fair notice of the allegations against him, allowing him to provide a defense. Brickley then claimed rel- ief under the TTLA or Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem Code (C.R. at 9), which a reasonable person would construe as an attempt to bring a suit under the TTLA rather that as a criminal action under the Texas Penal Code, which does not provide a party compensatory damages. Similarly,, the claim of violation to Brickley's inmate civil rig- hts could not be construed as a claim under the Texas Penal Code because of Brickley's claim of exemplary damages under Tex.Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code §41.003.(C.R. at9).

Furthermore, a petitioner is aot ¢eqdired:.to-provide-a legal th- eory in the petition to meet the Fair Pleadings Act. However, he is required to provide facts which would put the defendant on notice of the facts to allow them to create a valid defense. Peti- tioner is also required to provide an amount for recovery of dama- ges to establish jurisdiction of the court, which Brickley has done.(C.R. at 6-11).

And where the court determined that the Texas penal Code does not create a private cause of action. Tt is correct, however, the Texas penal Code does not preclude a private cause of action either. Just because an action is a criminal offense, the courts are given jurisdiction under other statutes such as Tex.Giv.Prac. & Rem.Code §134.001, or 42 U.S.C.S, §1983, to adjudicate a suit in a civil capacity. And if the facts were ambiguous, the court should have allowed an amendment to the pleadings rather than dismissal,

Finally, the court erred by not first addressing Brickley's

motion requesting defendant's attorney, Jacob I. Pons, to show authority to act, pursuant to Rule 12 of the Texas Civil Rules of

Gourt. Had the court required attorney to show authority to act, none of his pleadings, including his plea to jurisdiction would survive. Allowing the unauthorized representation for the defendant and refusing appointment of counsel for plaintiff after a request

to do so, amounts to an equal protection violation under the 14th Amendment, where the law precludes defense attorney to act and gives the court discretion to appoint counsel in this particular scenario, to the plaintiff. Which in hindsight, would have preven- ted the problems before this Court today. Therefore, the court erred by not first taking up the issue of plaintiff's request for defendant's attorney to show authority to act, before taking up

defendant's plea to jurisdiction.

ARGUMENT

Issue 1: The trial court erred in dismissing the case with

Tf a claim is not within the court's jurisdiction and the impediment to jurisdiction cannot be removed, the claim must be dismissed: but if the impediment to jurisdiction can be removed, the court should abate the proceedings to allow the plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to cure the jurisdictional problem. American

Motorists Ins. v. Fodge, 63 S.W.3d 801,805(Tex.2001); See Thomas

v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334,338(Tex.2006). A petition containing mult- iple claims should not be dismissed just because the court lacks

jurisdiction over one of the claims. Thomas at 338-39,

Here, the lower court dismissed claiming an incurable defect.(C.R. at 120). The jurisdicitional defect being that the court believed Brickley brought this claim under the Texas Penal Code, and that

the Penal Code does not provide citizens with private causes of a5: action.(C.R. at88-91). No hearing was had , nor was plaintiff afforded an opportunity to amend his petition.

Generally, if the court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit, it must dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction without rendering a judgment on the merits. Black v. Jackson, 82 S.W.3d 44,56(Tex.App.-Tyler 2002,no pet.); See Jansen

v. Fitzpatrick, 14 S.W.3d 426,431(Tex.App.-Houstonl 14th Dist. ]

2000,no pet.) The dismissal must be without prejudice because a dismissal with prejudice is a final decision on the merits. See Black, 82 S.W.3d at 56; Jansen, 14 S.W.3d at 431.

On the other hand, if a plaintiff in a suit against a governmental entitiy has been given an opportunity to amend and the plaintiff's amended pleading still does not allege facts that would constitute a waiver of immunity, the court should dismiss the plaintiff's

suit with prejudice. Harris Cty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 639(Tex.

2004); City of Carrollton v. Harlan, 180 $.W.3d 894,898(Tex.App.-

Dallas 2005, pet. denied); See also Texas A&M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu,

233 S.W.3d 835, 839-40(Tex.2007)(P is not required to amend its

pleadings until after the court rules on the plea to jurisdiction).

The dismissal is with prejudice because a plaintiff should not be

permitted to relitigate jurisdiction once a court has determined

there is no waiver of governmental immunity. See Harris Cty., 136

S.W.3d at 6393 City if Carrollton, 180 S.W.3d at 898.

However, even this was not the case to dismiss with prejudice, because the issue of immunity was never addressed by the court,

and had it been, immunity was shown to have been waived by facts

presented in Brickley's petition by allegations of violations to

TDCJ policy and the law by defendant.(C.R. at 3-4 & 16). Therefore,

Ww the lower court acted without any guiding principles in dismissing the case with prejudice, and had no authority to do so. Issue 2: The trial court erred in dismissing the case for jurisdiction. Standard of Review: The appellate courts review a challenge to

the trial court's jurisdiction de novo. State v. Holland,221 S.W.

3d 639,642(Tex.2007). The appellate court first looks to the pleadings to determine if the pleader has alleged facts that affi- rmatively demonstrate the court's jurisdiction to hear the cause.

Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 132 S.W.3d 217,226(Tex.

2004). The appellate court construes the pleadings liberally in favor of the plaintiff, look to the pleader's intent, and accept as true the factual allegations in the pleadings.

Here, the factual allegations of the pleadings show that defendant Walton, stole Brickley's legal work while working in concert with others, and refused to name the other responsible parties. Brickley had a right to the legal work; Walton intended on depriving him of the legal works; Brickley suffered harm as a result of the theft; and that harm was a violation to Rrickley's civil rights.(C.R. at 8-9). During the course of these actions by “alton , he violated TACT poliev, activiley ignoring his duty to provide confiscation papers for the legal work precluding Rrickley the ability to appeal the confiscation of the legal work The harm which resulted in a civil rights violation was the deprivation of Rrickley's access to courts and ability to participate in a legal action hy depriving him of his exhibits that he had prepared for legal

proceedings in the United States Supreme Court..

These facts give rise to a cognizable clain and estahlish the Llo-

6 wer court's jurisdiction. However, the appellee focuses on the

illustration of the Texas Penal Code violations required hy the TTLA and §1983 civil suit to be cemonstrated before a successful claim can be made in a civil suit. See Tex.Civ.Prac. *® Rem.Code

§4134.002; See also J & J Sports Prods. v. JWJ Momt., Inc., 324 S.W.

3d 823(Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2010, no pet.)(with respect to civil liability for such actions, the Texas Theft Liability Act(TTLA) makes certain theft offenses subject to civil penalties as well. Section 134.002 specifically provides for a civil cause of action against a person who commits an offense under section 31.12). See also Mazaheri v. Rosenblatt Law Firm, No.04-24-00433-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 4380(Tex.App.-San Antonio June 25,2025, no pet. h.)(de- monstrating, one essential element to a TTLA claim is ownership of the unlawfully appropriated property. Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code §§ 134.002(2),124.005; Tex.Pen.Gode §31.03€a).) Therefore, simply because Rrickley names the elements of the Texas Penal Code's theft

Statute, the trial court should not have construed the pleadings

to pursue a Texas Penal Code criminal claim against the appellee, although they are analoguous, instead should have observed the cle aims for damages directly nameing TTLA's statute for recovery.

Had the defense of immunity been properly raised, it would have still been waived hecause the officer's failed to comply with TDCI policy, and they failed to show that the confiscated property was

contraband, and in doing so, they were not entitled to immunity

for the claim of theft. Sanchez v. Roone, 579 S.W.3d 52h, 2019

Tex.App. LEXIS 4001 (Tex.App. Houston 14th Dist. May 16,2019 no

pet.). Therefore, dismissal for jurisdiction was error.

Issue 3; The court erred by not first taking up the matter of plaintiff's request for defendant's attorney to show authority to act.

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 12 states,"a party in a suit or proceeding pending in a court of this state, may by sworn written motion stating that he helieves the suit or proceeding is being prosecuted or defended without authority, cause the attorney to he cited to appear before the court to show authority to act.”

Brickley filed a motion with an unsworn declaration requesting that attorney Jacob T. Pons, show authority to act as counsel.(C.2. at 114-119). Brickley made claim that Jacob Pons was precluded from representing Mr. Walton, because Mr. Walton was sued in his individual capacity for violations of policy and other laws; where Texas Government Code §402.021 has only authorized the Texas Atto- rney General to "prosecute and defend" “actions in which the state is interested.”

“Under the Texas Constitution, the attorney general is an execut- ive department officer whose vrimary duties are to render legal

advice in opinions to various political agencies and to represent

the State in civil litigation.” Webster v. Comm'n for Law Discipline,

794& S.W.3d 478,2024 Tex. LEXTS 1175 (Tex.2024).

A suit against an official in his official capacity "seeks to impose liability against the governmental unit rather than on the individual specifically named and 'si, in all respects other than

name,... a suit against the entity.'" Tex. A&M Univ. Sys. Koseoglu,

233°S28.3d 835,844(Tex.2007) (quoting Ky. v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159

oomd

166,105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114(1985)), Here, the exact opposite

is the case. Defendant was, by actions committed, lacking immunity

because he was not (1) performing discretionary duties in (2) good

g fait (2) acting within the scope of his authority. City of

Lancaster v. Chambers, 882 S$.W.2d 650,652(Tex.1994),

Reing that Mr. Walton did not enjoy immunity, the state was not considered a party and therefore had no interest in the suit. And although Mr. Walton reserved his right to claim immunity, he never actually made a claim of immunity, nor was he entitled to such a claim. Because Rrickley never made a claim under the TTCA, Brickley did not include the state in his civil suit, because the TTCA remedies are in addition to other remedies, he was not requi- red to. Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Gode §101.0023,

Therefore, even now the Texas Attorney General's Office is acting without authority. And since the court refused Rrickley appointn- ent of counsel(C.R. at 62-64), but allowed defendant unauthorized

representation, equal protection under the 14th Amendment was

violated.

CONCLUSTON

The tower court abused discretion when dismissing this case, Decause, hac liberal interpretation of the pleadings in favor of the petitioner been enjoyed, the case would not have heen cismiss- ed where Rrickley's pleadings would been found in accordance with the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code rather than the Texas Penal Code. And the civil rights claims would have been construed to be in accordance with §1982 rather than the penal code. The references to the Texas Penal Gode would have heen found as refer- ences in support of his claim as required hy legislation and prec- edent to succeed on the suit. The lower court would understand

that, although the Texas Penal Code does not create a private cause

of action, it does not preclude a vrivate cause of action either. And because there was no hearing av claim of immunity, or non-

curable defects the lower court erred in dismissing the case with

Further, because the State is not an interested party, the lower court abused discretion in not first taking up the request for attorney to show authority to act, resulting in defendant being allowed unauthorized protection of the law and plaintiff being

denied an authorized protection of law via appointment of counsel,

through discretion granted by the courts.

PRAYER For these reasons appellant, James Rrickley, asks this Court to reverse the decision of the lower court and remand this case to the trial court for proceedings in accordance with the law, and to authorize the lower court to appoint counsel in the proceeding

as seen fit, and to address the Attorney General's authorization

to act as attorney before proceeding with preliminary matters.

Respectfully submitted,

JAMES RRICKLEY

Appellant, pro se 3201 FM 929 Gatesville, Texas 76597

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

T, James Rrickley, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Appellant's Brief and Appenix was sent to my agent with exnlicit instructions to forward to the opposing party via

certified mail, RRR. Executed on August 21,2025. NO. 15-25-00118-cV JAMES BRICKLEY, Appellant,

Ve NICHOLAS WALTON,

Appellee.

APPELLANT'S APPENDIX

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

1. The trial Court's judgment

9029 6© 8 G6 oKKRHe wee

2. Plaintiff's Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of LAW. cevccccccvencccsscscnccvevvccesucccuune oo 8 6 G2 ee Be eee Tab 2

3, Plaintiff's Motion Requesting Jacobi IT. Pons to Show Authority to ACh. .ccccececceecs Sousa e heen aus secre creeceee tab 3 TAR 1 CAUSE NO. DC-24-55842

JAMES BRICKLEY, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, 3 R ¥. § CORYELL COUNTY, TEXAS § NICHOLAS WALTON, & Defendane. & 440TH FUDECIAL DISTRICT ORDER _

Om this day the Court considered defendant Nicholas Walton’s Plea to the Jurisdiction. Having considered the mation and arguments of the parties, the Court ts of the opinion that the motion should in all things be GRANTED. The Court finds that 11 lacks subject-matter jurischetion aver plaintdY James Brickley's claims pursuant to the Texas Penal Core, The Court also finds that this ig an incurable defect for which leave to amend t futile. [tis therefore:

ORDERED that defendant Waltons motion is GRANTED. it is further

ORDERED that plaintiff Brickiey’s claims against defendant Walton are DISMISSED

with prejudice.

mae ceoeton:

Signed this /2 day of ze rmsteame —_, 228.

Hy fe DISTRICT CLERK

120 Automated Certificate of eServices This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a cartificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Gloriana Ojeda on behalf of Jacob Pons Bar No, 24139435 gloriana.cjeda@oag.texas.gov

Envelope ID: 700251302

Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee) Filing Description: 20250429 Ds PTJ Status as of 4/80/2025 4:04 AM CST

Associated Gase Party: Nicholas Walton

Name Barlumber | Ernall TimestampSubmitied | Status Gridney Meheld britney.mofield@eag.tevas.gov | 4200025 3:22:29 PM | SENT Jaoob Pons | 24130435 | jacob.ponsiioagtexes.gov | 4(2arapes S229 PM | SENT

Case Contacts

Name | Barlumber | Email ~~ FimestampSubmitied | Statue | Gloriana Qjeda | —_ | glariaina cjedaigesg.texes.gow | 4/20/2025 2:22:30 PM | SENT |

121 TAR 2 CAUSE NO. BC-24-55849

JAMES BRICKLET, 8 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintifé, § ve : CORYELL COUNTY, TEXAS NICHOLAS WALTON, . Defendant. § &40th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFF'S REQEUST FOR FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Plaintiff, James Brickley, agke the Court to File the Findings of fect and conelusions of Law.

INTRODUCT TOW 1. Plaintiff, James Brickley, sued defendant, Nicholas Walton for theft and violation of Brickley's inmate civil rights for his partcintthe theft of Brickley's legal materials which effected the outcome ef his parental rights case, Mr, Walton was sued in & his individual esapacity, where he made ne claim of immunity from suit;fhere were no hearings on the facts of the case; and the ease wag dlemiesed with prejudice. 2. The Court signed an order dismissing the case with prejudice on June 10th,2025, filed June iith,2028.

REQUEST

3. Plaintité asks the Court to file findings of fact and conclusi- ons of law and require the court clerk to mail eepies toe sll parties, &6 tequired by Texas Rule of Civil Prosedure 247, 4, Plaintiff files thie request within 20¢days after the Court Signed judgment or order. Tea.R.Civ.P. 2945.

ully submitted,

(Sauce

ES BRICKERY

Jun 26 2025 3701 FM 929 : GATESVILLE, TEXAS FESO?

BISTRICT Cl ERK 140 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Il, James Brickley, certify thet a true and correct copy of the foregoing motion was sent to my agent with express instructions ~

to forward the same to the attorney for the defendanttat the addr«

t

ess below via certified mail, return reciept requested. Executed

on this 18th day of June, 2025.

JACOBI I, PONS -

ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL

LAW ENFORGEMENT DEFENSE DIVISION OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. BOX 12548, CAPITOL STATION AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

a ME Tne 20ES AMES BRICKLEY 3201 FM 929

141 TAB 3

> TAY PES TRICT

ree

¥. PREVEL] ape Ty TRNAS

reouesthre Jeaehed YT. Same ter

theiy authors

Sadk re

-, Micholas Ualtoan, as slleowed by Tessas Mivil Procedure 12,

Fude of

POT CAC) Teer

bork bo dad thy epee i hay

he x ver oy. 6h rey eis, sé wo . ~ 2 + me, i> fs 3 fey oi -

The Yense Tivil Practices ool Rermelies Pole Shaan feels foe there

reegeved Unstltant«

igingl Ansvuer”

Mage, feet. Shtoarney “enerad, filet elec- Leronicgidivy an Anrib Fe feo. Se Maye PS 08S, Priekley subayit ted

Filed Lo ' Le . . ul, GUAT an anewer te Falten'’s requcats for dientosuce in Petemiant's Yack 2/6 cna me oe THY ‘UN GQ Tes

4 4 . Pye Ra

aeethoar tte ov

f j } gost Ph

he onsteere ef Lips at

the sone k law as Pedic mut me gg istes

he omsfd tier ta aayvernias ireniniev,

114 chereFore |

feral Nas pr

Toyo beg ceyy &

ARGUYENT 4 AUTHORITIES

a piety alleses an atharney is prosecutions or defenting s

ct

ane ote nithaut sutheritv, tie ehollenagad attor-

the gcourk ta shee hhe or her subhertty ¢

Beh. Tree. Bitte Mh, Pa,

4m, Piwler Hide V2, the Srurt shale cite teenhi PP. Pore ape rendre him toa appear fer a to show his authority to defend en

bers hy 8 I fr 2 r M4 ak oh 1 &

7. Texas Severoaront Cats 4% Se lcey gives thy AlLcorrey Senecal

Tapert sted chee ce iyed

wll

So lee e t wet le Cyn ee We dake me preves Perey ae : tou, mh ot rere ae De Lip Ee rer dpe lie Pape Ron gs "dabomarde: borgigth geryel arclep Siow oct ania ds ‘

OWeVEr, sere is ue aubhorite te represen: MF ehoatlaes Walter wire

sued in his inéivieual capanity, because the State chores pot have

“APOLIM Le omdy rent

. Phatebiff recsuests a hearines te have lacahd 3 Pong Bhow authea-

Boudike ae Ahternes for defPendunt io his diudlivid-

bel gapnanity, of shew thar he not he aed inh

® individual

Rp wg mi ti, PUAY EE ti wee wats he oy ee ws YO DAO PNR Fe Boa 4 sag by dat pare per i ® 4 su pe pe, et 7 eoremp Lipase pesseua, ocleinrdid PPPs omer tr AMM? fy

hefore the Court euthoritiy te defend

Reenegtruliy submitter,

Lhe Ferecnive mation ane the accnmpane ine Unsworn

Neclaration of the Plaiatifé ts

eul with express Laeteucétions

Nee Bath ES

to Forward tn the defendant ar the saape:

helow,

Meu hed on this

the 2ne

; ems} Ly PODEPENSI QEFICE OF THE Ot TORRPY Griceay PG. WOW PRAGA, CAPTTOL STAy Tew

wee Day SUSTIN, TEMAS PRFLL

#

} MIMI

JULIA RODGERS-BLACKMON 335 JIM BELL ROAD CAMPTI, LA 71411

7021 0950 0000 2078 S50?

a y

& Complete items 1, 2, and 3.

@ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you.

@ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits.

Co. et £ ie Se Divisiow

A. Signature

x

oe FO iS 5 PR as sk gu 9 Sa 5° x Gam th mS so US Sic ce 4 6S saic=

J Agent ( Addressee

B. Received by (Printed Name)

C. Date of Delivery

1. Article Addressed % on $

Va 6 it. f fle Albrne Gent

FOB x Ins¢¥ Ausln Tx 7 ¥) /(

UU ATOR

9590 9402 8954 4064 6209 72

if YES, enter delivery address

D. Is delivery address different from item 1? [1 Yes

below: (J No

2, Article Number (Transfer from service label

3. Service Type

0 Adult Signature

Oi Adult Signature Restricted Delivery

O Certified Mall@

0 Certified Mail Restricted Delivery

O Collect on Delivery

0 Collect on Nelivery Restricted Delivery

702k 04550 o000 2078 430? | Restricted Delivery

ren enw FOV POUL)

O Priority Mail Express®

O Registered Mail™

O Registered Mail Restricted Delivery

O Signature Confirmation™

O Signature Confirmation Resiricted Delivery

, PS Form 3811, July 2020 PSN 7530-02-000-9083

Domestic Return Receipt

FILED IN’ 15th COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS TO: Clerk of the August 29, 2025 15% COURT OF APPEALS SEP 09 2025 P.O. Box 12852 CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Austin, Texas 78711 CLERK

RE: JAMES BRICKLEY v. NICHOLAS WALTON 15™ COA CAUSE # 15-25-00118-CV; TRIAL CAUSE # DC-24-55842 APPELLANT’S BRIEF

| am sending an extra copy of the following documents “APPELLANT’S BRIEF” listed above to be filed stamped and returned in the postage paid and addressed envelope to the address listed below

Sincerely,

Acting Agent for

James Brickley

Julia Rodgers-Blackmon 335 Jim Bell Rd

Campti, LA 71411 JULIA RODGERS-BLACKMON 335 JIM BELL ROAD : OSTAGE PAID CAMPTI, LA 71411 Retail FGM LG ENV CAMPTI, LA 71411 7021 0950 o0o00 2078 914 Ba || HI ee

POSTAL SERVICE 78711 $ 1 4 ; 1 4

RDC 99 $2324P500108-7

RECEIVED IN Check

SV austen [Ss a K Appel s SEP 09 2025 Fo: i J eo OPE A. PRINE A Ks. [: n , Tex ax

FETT |

al ihe tale HIM date!