In Re Jeremy Wayne Atkins v. the State of Texas

In the
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-25-00075-CV

IN RE JEREMY WAYNE ATKINS

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jeremy Wayne Atkins has filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus asking this Court

to compel the Honorable Keli Aiken, judge of the 354th Judicial District Court of Hunt County

(the trial court), to vacate the trial court’s orders of August 19 and 21, 2025, and to direct the trial

court to transfer the underlying matter to Rockwall County. We deny Atkins’s petition.

Rule 52.7(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure states that a “[r]elator must

file with the petition . . . a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the

relator’s claims for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding.” TEX. R. APP. P.

52.7(a)(1) (emphasis added). Also, Rule 42.3(k)(1)(B) of the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure states, “The appendix . . . must contain . . . a certified or sworn copy of any order

complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of.” TEX. R. APP. P.

52.3(k)(1)(B). Here, Atkins failed to provide a certified copy of the underlying pleadings in this

matter, including, but not limited to, the motion to enforce filed by Atkins to initiate the

underlying proceeding. Among other inadequacies, Atkins’s appendix contained unsworn copies

of filings in the underlying proceeding. While Atkins included an affidavit in his appendix, the

affidavit served to show this Court that no ruling was entered on his motions to transfer. An

affidavit in a mandamus proceeding “‘must affirmatively show it is based on the personal

knowledge of the affiant’; the affidavit ‘is insufficient unless the statements in it are direct and

unequivocal and perjury can be assigned to them.’” In re Long, 607 S.W.3d 443, 445 (Tex.

App.—Texarkana 2020, orig. proceeding) (quoting In re Henderson, No. 06-15-00034-CR, 2015

WL 13522812, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Mar. 10, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op., not

2
designated for publication)); see also In re Quintana, No. 02-15-00305-CV, 2015 WL 6395639,

at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 22, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (per curiam) (finding

insufficient the recitation that “documents attached in the appendix are documents filed in this

cause of action”); In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding)

(finding insufficient the recitation that “[t]he documents contained in the attached Record and

attached Appendix to the Relators’ Petition for Writ of Mandamus are to my knowledge true and

correct copies of the original documents”); In re Gentry, No. 05-20-00442-CV, 2020 WL

2519892, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 18, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (finding

insufficient the recitation on a certification that the petition was “TRUE and CORRECT, to the

best of my knowledge under the threat of perjury”)).

Atkins has the burden to properly request and show his entitlement to mandamus relief.

See Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig.

proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself

entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”) To do so, “he must show that he has no adequate

remedy at law to redress his alleged harm” and “that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act,

not involving a discretionary or judicial decision.” State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of

Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding).

“‘Because the record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by the parties,’ we must

‘strictly enforce[] the authentication requirements of rule 52 to ensure the integrity of the

mandamus record.’” In re Long, 607 S.W.3d at 445 (alteration in original) (quoting In re Smith,

No. 05-19-00268-CV, 2019 WL 1305970, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 22, 2019, orig.

3
proceeding) (mem. op.)). For these reasons, we conclude that Atkins has failed to comply with

the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure and has not met his burden to provide a record sufficient

to show himself entitled to mandamus relief.

Accordingly, we deny Atkins’s petition for a writ of mandamus. Further, Atkins’s

motion for temporary relief is denied as moot.

Charles van Cleef
Justice

Date Submitted: September 3, 2025
Date Decided: September 4, 2025

4