James Brickley v. Nicholas Watson

NO. 15-25-00118-CV

IN THE FILED IN

15th COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS

AUG 25 2025

CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
CLERK

FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

at AUSTIN

JAMES BRICKLEY,
Appellant,

Vv.

NICHOLAS WALTON,
Appellee.

Appealed from the 440th Court of
Coryell County, Texas

APPELLANT'S BRIEF

JAMES BRICKLEY
Appellant pro se

3201 FM 929

Gatesville, Texas 76597

JAMES BRICKLEY
PRO SE

APPELLANT REQUESTS ORAL ARGUMENT
NO. 15-25-00118-CV

JAMES BRICKLEY,
Appellant,

V.

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 Bar 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........00. beth ee ence seen eee nee beeen e wees 1
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES........ see eee ease enes See ese eees seen i111
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. ccc eeeecaceues sate n ern eens serene eee seeedv
STATEMENT ON ORAL ARGUMENT.......0.. bese eee ena eee stb eeeeae 8 Vv
ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW. .....000ceeeees ve bee tes aee thee e ee eee Vv
STATEMENT OF FACTS. .cacceuececueee beeen ere e eee tee ee eee ve weee 1
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT.......000c0eeeeee see eee ene eee seen e eens 1
ARGUMENT. 2.2.4.6. vee eee eens See e eee nee e nae Peewee nee aae see ee eee 4,

Issue t: The trial court erred in dismissing the case with
prejudice..... e 8 #@ @ © PF 8 8 oF se ' + + ee ee ee ee a es e+ @ ee ee eee ee weed

Issue 2: The trial court erred in dismissing the case for
jurisdiction.,......... sheen eee nenneee Seen e ene ans wee 6

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....icacccccecacs cece e eee eee 7
CONCLUSION. coca eee eee peeve eee ena Cee e eet cee seen eee 29
PRAYER. wee enna Senet e enone Liceaeees see eeee bbe eee eeee veee ee lO
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE... ccc cee ee eaes eee eee eee e nee been eae es 10
APPENDIX. ccc eae e eee eee eee eee ewes tee teen eee nee thee eens eee eed

ii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES age

CASES
American Motorists Ins. v. Fodge, 63 S.1.3d 801,805 (Tex.2006)..4

Black v. Jackson, 82 S.W.3d 44,56 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2002, no
pet. ef ee es ee ee ee eae ee eee ee OO eC oo @ @ ee tease ees dD

City of Carrollton v. Harlan, 180 S.W.3d 894,898 (Tex.App.-
Dallas 2005, pet. denied)... ccc cece cece eee eenes bebe ee eee 5

City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650,653 (Tex.1994)....9
Harris Cty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635,639 (Tex.2004).......... wd

Jansen v. Fitzpatrick, 14 S.W,3d 426,431 (Tex.App.-Houston
{14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.)...cceceaee Lee eee cere wena weed

J&J Sports Prods. v. JWJ Mgmt., Inc., 324 S.W.3d 823 (Tex.App.-
Fort Woth 2010, no pet.).......0. Lecce ences eeeeas ceeiueeel

Mazaheri v. Rosenblatt Law Firm, No.04-24-00453-CV, 2025 Tex.
App. LEXIS 4380 (Tex.App.- San Antonio June25,2025, no

Pet He )iscccscvveccvece Cem e eee eee en eees eee eee eens 7
Sanchez v. Boone, 579 S.W.3d 526, 2019 Tex.App. LEXIS 4001 (Tex.

App.-Houston 14th Dist. Mayl6,2019.no pet. )isssesseease seed
State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 639,642 (Tex.2007)...eeeeceees eb
Texas A&M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835,839-40 (Tex,

2007) scccecaccncceseureres esatetvecterens neue beeen nee 558
Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 $.W.3d 217,

226 (Tex.2004)...ccccceaee cece ee eee ease eeennes vee e ewes 6
Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334,338 (Tex.2006)..... beeen eeee 4
Webster v. Comm'n for Law Discipline, 704 SW.3d 478, 2024 Tex.

LEXES 1175 (Tex. 2024) cic ccscccvcnscncencevcneens eee ee ees 8

STATUTES
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §134.005......... sees 2
Texas Government Code §402.021....... Cece ee eee eee teens 1 8B
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 12..c.cccvccccceceeceaae pee eeeees 8
Tex.Civ.Prac.& Rem.Code S10L.003..... ccc eee ee eee eee cece ntees .9
Tex.Civ.Prac.& Rem. Code $134,001. ci cceseeeenee ee eaees bocce cere eed
Tex.Civ.Prac.& Rem.Code §134.002........4, Leer eee eee ee eeeee 7

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CONT...

Tex.Civ.Prac.& Rem.Code §41,.003....

ee eb be ee ee

Tex,Civ.Prac.& Rem.Code §§134,001-005.......

42 USCS $1983. .... ccc eee eee rae

ifja

see eee eee se eenecneed
foe oe ee eee ee he seeeed
sp eee eee eee ek he + save neceesaed

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nature of the Case, Appellant sued appellee for the theft of
his 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 (C.R. at 114-18). The court
ordered Dismissal with prejudice for jurisdiction on June 11,2025
(C.R. at 122){(APP. TAB 1), unbeknownst to the plaintiff. Plains
tiff filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law,
CG.R. pp. 140-41). The trial court has refused to File’such Finds
ings of fact and conclusions of law, despite notice.

Trial Court Disposition. The trial court rendered judgment on

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

iv

STATEMENT ON ORAL ARGUMENT

The Court 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 appeal 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-
067-CV; and Brickley v. Mitchell, Cause number 15-25-00063-CV. See
Tex. R.App.P. 39.1(c).

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Issue 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 Brickley'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 TDCJ 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

to amend because he belived there were no additional facts which
could cure a jurisdictional defect by changing a »previouslypled
claim for relief. €CwRvsat 89). However, Brickley would not need

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

Theft Liability Act.(C.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
geanted-the-court jurisdiction over the cse, (C.R. at 120).

In bringing a suit for a'civil theft, pursuant<to sthé 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

-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 Gode, 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 Téx.Civ.Prac.
& Rem,Code §41.003.(C.R. at9),

Furthermore, a petitioner is notiteqditedte -provideca 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. It 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.Civ.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 aliowed 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

Court. 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

prejudice.

If 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 ,

toe

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.-Houston[{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 S.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 639; 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,

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, 133 S.W.3d 217,226(Tex.

2004). The appellate courtsconstrues 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 work; Brickley suffered’ harm as a result of the theft;
and that harm was a violation to Brickley's civil rights.(C.R. at
8-9). During the course of these actions by Walton , he violated
TNGT policy, activley ignoring his duty to provide confiscation ©
papers for the legal work precluding Brickley the ability to
appeal the confiscation of the legal work The harm which resulted
in a civil rights violation was the deprivation of Brickley's
access fo courts and ability to participate in a legal action by
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 claim and establish the lo

tones

6

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

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

§134.002; See also J’& J Sports Prods. v. JWJ Mgmt., 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),134.005; Tex.Pen.Code §31.03€a).}) Therefore, simply
because Brickley 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 cl-
aims for damages directly nameing TTLA's statute for recovery.

Had the defense of immunity been properly raised, it would have
still been waived because the officer's failed to comply with TDCJ
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. Boone, 579 S.W.3d 526, 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 cotrrt of this state, may by sworn written
motion stating that he believes the suit or proceeding is being
prosecuted or defended without authority, cause the attorney to be
cited to appear before the court to show authority to act."

Brickley filed a motion with an unsworn declaration requesting
that attorney Jacob I. Pons, show authority to act as counsel.(C.R.
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 primary duties are to render legal
advice in opinions to various political agencies and to represent

the State in civil fitigation." Webster v. Comm'n for Law Discipline
g Pp ’

704 S.W.3d 478,2024 Tex. LEXIS 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°S29.3d>835;844(Tex.2007)(quoting Ky. v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159

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

faith (3) acting within the scope of his authority. City of
Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 $.W.2d 650,653(Tex.1994).

Being 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 Brickley 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.Code §101.003.

Therefore, even now the Texas Attorney General's Office is acting
without authority. And since the court refused Brickley appointm<«
ent of counsel(C.R. at 63-64), but allowed defendant unauthorized
representation, equal protection under the 14th Amendment was

violated.

coneLuszon
The lower -court abused discretion when dismissing this case,
because, had liberal interpretation of the pleadings in favor of
the petitioner been enjoyed, the case would not have been dismiss-~
ed where Brickley'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 §1983 rather than the penal code. The
references to the Texas Penal: Code would have been found as refer-
ences in support of his claim as required by 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 private cause of action either.
And because there was no hearing ot claim of immunity, or non-
curable defects the lower court erred in dismissing the case with
prejudice.

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 Brickley, asks this Gourt 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 BRICKLEY
Appellant, pro se

3201 FM 929
Gatesville, Texas 76597

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, James Brickley, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of
the foregoing Appellant's Brief and Appenix was sent to my agent
with explicit instructions to forward to the opposing party via

certified mail, RRR. Executed on August 21,2025,

10

NO. 15-25-00118-cV
JAMES BRICKLEY,
Appellant,

Vv.
NICHOLAS WALTON,

Appellee.

APPELLANT'S APPENDIX

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

1. The trial Court's judgment .........

2, Plaintiff's Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law @qense# ee 6 oe # ee ee wee ee ** @ @ ee ee ee ee ee) ** *# © © 2 ee ee weeltab 2

3. Plaintiff's Motion Réquesting Jacobi I. Pons to Show -
Authority to Actsscscscccuee seen teem eee eee crete eee eee tab 3

TAB 1

CAUSE NO, DC+14-83842

JAMES BRICKLEY, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff, §
§
¥, § CORYELL COUNTY, TEXAS
§
NICHOLAS WALTON, §
Defendant, § 440TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ORDER -

Ow this day the Court considered defendant Nicholas Walton's Plea to the Jurisdiction,
Having considered the mation and arguments of the parties, the Court is of the apinion that the
motion should in all things be GRANTED. The Court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction
over plaintiff James Brickley's claims pursuant to the Texas Penal Cade, The Court also finds that
this ig an incurable defect for which leave to amend is futile. H is therefore:

ORDERED that defendant Walton’s motion is GRANTED. It is further

ORDERED that plaintiff Brickley's claims against defendant Walton are DISMISSED
with prejudice.

Signed this ft day of CA i en te , 2035,

TUDGE PRESIDING — = = me
Filed

CORYELL COUN Cg

dU 77 2025

fh Hf
DISTRICT CLERK

120

Automated Certificate of eService

This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. |
Tha filer served this document via amall 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 sti

certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules,

Glorlana Ojeda on behalf of Jacob Pons
Bar No. 24139435
gloriana.cjeda@oag.texas.gov
Envelope ID: 100231302

Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee)
Filing Description: 20250429 Ds PTJ
Status as of 4/30/2025 8:04 AM CST

Associated Case Patty: Nicholas Walton

| provide a

721

_ | Name BarNumber | Emall TimastampSubmitted | Status
Brdnay Moteld | ‘britney mofeid@oag.texas.gov | 4/20/2025 3:22:29 PM | SENT
Jacob Pons [24120445 | Jacob-ponsg@jaagaxas.gov | 4/29/2025 3:22.28 PM | SENT
Gase Contacts
Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Statue
Gloriaria Ojeda ~~) gloviana.ojeda thong. lexas.gav } 4/24/2026 3:22:20 BM | SENT
TAB 20°
CAUSE NO, DO-24-55847

JAMES BRICKLEY, § IN THE DISTRICT GOURT OF
Plaintiff,
§
Vv. § CORYELL COUNTY, TEXAS
NICHOLAS WALTON, . :
Defendant. § 440th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

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

Plaintiff, James Brickley, aske the Court to file the Findings
of fact and conciusions of law.

INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff, Jamas Brickley, sued defendant, Nicholas Walton Fox

theft and violation of Brickley's inmate civil rights for his
pastsinfthe theft of Rrickley's legal materials which affected
the outcome of hie parental rights case, Mr. Walton was sued in +
his individual capacity, where he made no claim of Linmundity
from suit;fhere were no hearings on the facts of the case; and
the case was dismissed with prejudice. .
2. The Court signed an order dismissing the case with prejudice
on June 10th,2025, filed June 11th, 2025.

REQUEST
3. Plaintiff asks the Court to file findings of fact and conelusi~-
eng of law and require the court clark to mail copies to all
parties, as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 297.
4. Plaintiff files this request within 20ddays after the Court
signed judgment or order. Tex.R.Civ.P. 295.

ully submitted,

compel Leow

JUN 26 2025

3201 FM 929
GATESVILLE, TEXAS 76597

DISTRICT CLERK 1 140
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, James Brickley, certify that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing motion was sent to my agent with express instructions t
to forward the sama to the attorney for the defendanttat the addr~
ass below via certified mail, return reciept requested. Executed

on this 18th day of June, 2025.

JACOBI I. PONS

ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL

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

kgf Be IE Fne dors
PFANES BRICKLEY

3201 FM 929
GATESVILLE, TEXAS 76597

144

TAB 3

hay Ne Pa ORS

JAMES BRLCKLEY, § 2 TAN PLSTRICT COURT OF
Plaintifeé,
§
v. CORVELL. COUNPY, ‘HExAg
& ‘

NICHOLAS WALTON, 2
he fandarit & ‘40th FUDICTAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIVE'S MOTION REQUESTING JACOBI T, FANS 'TO
SHOW AUTHORETY TO) ACT

Plaintiff, James Rrickiny, Files this verified motion

» PEGues EER Jaeehi I. Pons ta show their authority to defend this

ait on “bohalt ef defendant, Sicholas Ualton, as allowed hy Texas

Rule of Civil Procedure 12.
INTROMUCTION

1. Plaintiff, James Brickley, sued defendant, Nicholas uakeon, in

his individual capacity for acts violative of FOCd policy and the

Texas Yonal Cede da hie toedividual supaatiy ane authorized hy

the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Cade S'34,0%1) for theft

and violation of Wirickley's imate civil rights.

2. On Hay 16,7025 Prickiey recieved Walton's " Griginal Answer"

ubmittiad by Jacobi 1. Pons, Asat. Atkerney Ceneral, filed eleg-

tronieally on Aprib PH, AUFS. On May 10,7825, Rriekley ree Filed
! COUNTY

an aaswer: to Milton's reauests for disclosure in Defendant's - Fan AL
ans
Mrisinal Aaver, yo’ Sg ne : iN go 70s

BACKGRODAN ‘Bala ta
STRUCT CLERK
3, Pladntayf helieves that Jacobi loss is defendine this suit
without the authority nf the Office of fhe Atbrarney General.

4, Plaintiff hus Filed this suit asa@inest tNeholas Waltan in his

individual capacity, due to the nature of the allegations, which

would viulate TROE policy and the wound law as laid out as prides

in the petition, he would not be entitled to sovereign immunity,

414
therefore, the Offiee of the Attorney General has po authority be

represent the defoudant in this suit.
ARGUEENT A. ALTHORITIES

a, When a party alleges an attorney ia prosecubiig or defending A

Suit on behalf of another without authority, the challenged athor-

ney get appar before the eeurt to show his or ber authority to

aot, Tex, ,R.Giv.P. 23,

Hh, dimter Rule 12, the Court shaulé cite dseobl T. Pens and require

“hin to-appear fora hearing to show hie awthority té defend an. --

behalf eF Nicholas Walton.

#. Texas Cavernsent Cade § 462.071 ives the Aktorney Goneral
autherity ta “prosecute and defend all action in whieh the atare
i@ interastod hefare the Supreme Caurt and euurts of appeals".
Powever, Ehere is na authorite to Fepresent Nieholas Wal bain ven
sic in his dineividual capacity, beeuuse the atate doog not have
an interest ji thie suit, A claim of savereian Awmunity may ne £
he assumed but mise fdrst he ecladmed hefare it can be recwanized
hy the court. Where Walter merely reserved his right toe wake the
wlainm in his Original Snawer, he had not vagtually ade the clin,

- CORCLUSTON :
Re Plait ge reqnedks q hearing to have Jacobi 3, Pons shew autho- ©
rity to get dn this sase a# atterney for defendant in hia individ-
val capasity, ar shew that he shoule net be sited in his individual
aapucd by.

PRAYER

0, For these reasans, plaintiff asks Chia cemrt te cite Jacobi I.

Fons to appear bafere the Caurt ond show his autherity te dafend

this case on behalf af Sieholas Valten,

115
to Forward to the defendant ar

CERTIFICATE

Noapeckiully s submitted,

= J a 7 pie ’ 4
f. Bee Cages Le, 2, Ga the
TAM ARTCRLRY
v Bani fe 999

GA'PESVILLE, TEXAS 76597

OF SERVICE

‘TJ, James frickley, hereby certify that T have sent a trie and

Gorrect aepy of the ferepoing motion and the accompanying Unswors

Heclaration: of tho Plaintif® to my agent with express insleuctions ...

the 2nd day of Jaume, 2075,

‘GAGQRT TP, PANS

ASST, ATTORNEY GRENR AL

LAW ENFORCEMENT DRFENSK Bry,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GERTRAT,
Ff. BOX Psa ; CAPITOL STATTON
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

wee

the seddyess

iG

below, Executed on this

£ et a an
OL fhpes
JAMES Ae ICKLEY
“ 3Otd FM 929
CATRSVYELLE |

TAKA.

PHSGY