In Re Kevin Nichols v. the State of Texas

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

No. 08-26-00127-CR
————————————

In re Kevin Nichols, Relator

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN MANDAMUS

M E MO RA N D UM O PI NI O N
On March 26, 2026, Relator, Kevin Nichols, filed a single-page handwritten document,

which does not provide a case style, requesting that we “arrest [and] charge [an identified person]

with 28 USC 1741 penalty of perjury [sic]” and that we “charge [two other persons] with treason

for violating their oath[s] of office.” Nichols states that his requests are “always in mandamus.”

We construe the document as a petition initiating an original appellate proceeding seeking
extraordinary relief. 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1 (stating that a petition filed in an appellate court

seeking extraordinary relief, such as a writ of mandamus or a writ of quo warranto, commences an

original appellate proceeding).

As an intermediate appellate court, 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).

We dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction.

MARIA SALAS MENDOZA, Chief Justice

April 1, 2026

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

(Do Not Publish)

1
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.

2