In Re Kevin Nichols v. the State of Texas

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
————————————

No. 08-26-00091-CR
————————————

In re Kevin Nichols, Relator

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN MANDAMUS

M E MO RA N D UM O PI NI O N
On February 17, 2026, Relator, Kevin Nichols, filed a two-page handwritten document,

which does not provide a case style and is not signed, requesting that we “File Treason on” named

individuals and that we “File Treason Charges in Mandamus Quo Warranto.” 1 We construe the

document as a petition initiating an original appellate proceeding seeking extraordinary relief. 2 See

Tex. R. App. P. 52.1(stating that a petition filed in an appellate court seeking extraordinary relief,

1
The filing also includes two attachments, consisting of a typewritten copy of the Bill of Rights and what appears to
be a single page from a motion to revoke a defendant’s bond, both of which have handwritten notes on them.
2
We note that Nichols’ petition does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Tex. R. App. P.
9.1(b), 9.4, 9.5, 52.3, 52.7.
such as a writ of mandamus or a writ of quo warranto, commences an original appellate

proceeding).

To the extent we construe Nichols’ pleading as a petition seeking the issuance of a writ of

quo warranto, Nichols lacks the right to file such an application and has failed to show that we

have jurisdiction to issue such a writ. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(a) (authorizing appellate

courts to issue writs of mandamus “and all other writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of the

court”); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 66.002(a) (authorizing only the attorney general or

the county or district attorney of the proper county to petition “for leave to file an information in

the nature of quo warranto”); Paxton v. Annunciation House, Inc., 719 S.W.3d 555, 570 (Tex. 2025)

(“Even then, however, quo warranto must still be pursued governmentally; were it is available, we

recently reiterated that the writ is exclusive and can only be brought by the attorney general, a

county attorney, or a district attorney.” (internal quotations omitted)).

Similarly, to the extent we construe Nichols’ pleading as a petition for writ of mandamus,

we lack jurisdiction to initiate or to compel the initiation of a criminal prosecution. See In re LaRue,

No. 08-25-00215-CR, 2025 WL 2609571, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso Sept. 9, 2025, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.) (not designated for publication); In re Vineyard, No. 07-03-0311-CV, 2003

WL 21688108, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July 18, 2003, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (per

curiam).

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

February 26, 2026

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

(Do Not Publish)

2