In Re Jackie Wayne Daniel v. the State of Texas

Opinion filed May 30, 2025

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________

No. 11-25-00139-CV
__________

IN RE JACKIE WAYNE DANIEL

Original Mandamus Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This mandamus action is brought by Relator, Jackie Wayne Daniel, a pro se
litigant. Relator makes three complaints. First, he complains that the Knox County
Clerk has refused to file a pleading that he is attempting to submit in a probate
proceeding that relates to the Estate of Roy Cyrus Daniel. Second, he complains
that the Knox County attorney has somehow failed to exercise “oversight,”
prejudicing his right to inherit from the estate. Third, he complains that the
Honorable John Thompson, the Knox County Judge who is sitting in probate, has
failed to act on Relator’s request to stay enforcement of a lien that has been asserted
against the estate by the Texas Department of Health and Human Services.
With respect to his first complaint, Relator asks us to issue mandamus
compelling the clerk to “file and docket” his proposed pleading. We lack jurisdiction
to provide this relief. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West Supp. 2024)
(providing for limited jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus); In re Price, No. 11-
21-00089-CR, 2021 WL 2009495, at *1 (Tex. App.—Eastland May 20, 2021, orig.
proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
We likewise do not have jurisdiction to consider a request for mandamus
against a county attorney. See GOV’T § 22.221; In re Viator, No. 03-24-00833-CV,
2025 WL 20823, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin Jan. 3, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“[W]e
have no jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a district or county attorney
unless necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.”).
Finally, Relator does not explicitly request any relief in connection with his
complaint regarding the county judge. However, even if we were to interpret
his petition as a request for us to compel the county judge to rule on any
requests for relief, his petition, together with the uncertified and unsworn
documents included in the appendix, is insufficient to support mandamus. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(B), 52.7(a)(1). While the appendix contains a letter that
was purportedly sent to the trial court requesting action, there is no evidence that
it was received by the trial court, nor is there evidence of its refusal to act. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(g) (“Every statement of fact in the petition must be supported
by citation to competent evidence included in the appendix or record.”).

2
We dismiss Relator’s petition for want of jurisdiction insofar as he seeks a
writ of mandamus against the county clerk and/or county attorney. We deny the
petition for writ of mandamus with respect to any remaining claims.

JOHN M. BAILEY
CHIEF JUSTICE

May 30, 2025
Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,
Trotter, J., and Williams, J.

3