CourtListener 10773090

Full text

ACCEPTED
15-25-00234-CV
FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
No. 15-25-00234-CV 1/5/2026 3:00 PM
CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

In the Court of Appeals for FILED IN
CLERK

the Fifteenth District of Texas at Austin
15th COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
1/5/2026 3:00:43 PM
STEPHEN PATRICK BLACK, CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE
Clerk
Appellant
v.
HAYLEY GLISSON AND THE TEXAS CIVIL COMMITMENT OFFICE,
Appellees

On Appeal from the 455th District Court of Travis County, Texas
Trial Court Case Number: D-1-GN-25-001039
Honorable Laurie Eiserloh, Presiding

Brief of Appellant

Ethan Nutter
Texas Bar No. 24104988
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
200 West 6th Street, Suite 2500
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 542-8555 (Telephone)
(512) 236-3239 (Facsimile)
enutter@velaw.com

Attorney for Appellant

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

PETITIONER-APPELLANT: Stephen Patrick Black

PETITIONER-APPELLANT’S Counsel in Court of Appeals:
COUNSEL: Ethan Nutter
Texas Bar No. 24104988
enutter@velaw.com
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
200 West 6th Street, Suite 2500
Austin, Texas 78701

RESPONDENT-APPELLEE: Hayley Glisson1

RESPONDENT-APPELLEE’S Counsel in Court of Appeals and Trial Court:
COUNSEL: Ken Paxton
Brent Webster
Ralph Molina
Austin Kinghorn
Ernest C. Garcia
John M. Grey
Office of the Attorney General
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711-2548

Counsel in Trial Court Only
Maya Bailey
Office of the Attorney General
808 Travis Street, Suite 1520
Houston, Texas 77002

1
The Austin Court of Appeals caption designated Appellees as both Hayley Glisson
and the Texas Civil Commitment Office. However, Black’s mandamus petition and
notice of appeal designated Hayley Glisson as the Respondent-Appellee. CR5;
CR121. Further, as explained herein, the proper respondent in a Texas Public
Information Act mandamus is the individual officer, not the governmental body
itself. See infra Argument §I.B.3.

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ............................................................ 2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...................................................................................... 4
RECORD REFERENCES ......................................................................................... 7
STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 8
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ............................................... 9
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED.............................................................. 10
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 11
STATEMENT OF FACTS ...................................................................................... 14
I. Appellant Stephen Patrick Black submits a request for
information under the Texas Public Information Act. ........................ 14
II. Black files a mandamus proceeding in Travis County
challenging the AG Opinion and TCCO’s denial. .............................. 15
III. The trial court grants Appellee’s plea to the jurisdiction. ................... 16
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 18
ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 20
I. The trial court had jurisdiction over all of Black’s claims and
should not have dismissed the case. .................................................... 20
A. Appellee’s arguments about §552.321 are contrary to
Texas Supreme Court precedent. .............................................. 22
B. Appellee’s other arguments are wrong. .................................... 25
1. Black did not intend an ultra vires action, and this
Court does not need to decide whether withholding
public information is ultra vires. .................................... 26
2. Black could not have sought declaratory relief
against the Attorney General. ......................................... 27
3. Black named the proper parties, the officer for
public information and the governmental body
itself. ............................................................................... 28
PRAYER .................................................................................................................. 31

3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases
A & T Consultants, Inc. v. Sharp,
904 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1995) ..............................................................................28
Alsobrook v. MTGLQ Inv’rs, LP,
657 S.W.3d 327 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2021), review granted, decision
aff’d as modified, 656 S.W.3d 394 (Tex. 2022) .................................................14
City of El Paso v. Heinrich,
284 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2009) ..............................................................................25
Gonzalez v. Tex. Med. Bd.,
No722 S.W.3d 848, 852 (Tex. 2025)..................................................................26
Guthrie v. Garcia,
352 S.W.3d 307 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) ...................28
Hall v. McRaven,
508 S.W.3d 232 (Tex. 2017) ..............................................................................26
Hutchins v. Tex. Rehab. Comm’n,
544 S.W.2d 802 (Tex. App.—Austin 1976, no pet.) ..........................................11
Kallinen v. City of Houston,
462 S.W.3d 25 (Tex. 2015)......................................................................... passim
Keever v. Finlan,
988 S.W.2d 300 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1999, pet. dism’d) ...................................29
Kensington Title-Nevada, LLC v. Tex. Dep’t of State Health Servs.,
710 S.W.3d 225 (Tex. 2025) ..............................................................................26
McLane Co., Inc. v. Tex. Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n,
514 S.W.3d 871 (Tex. App.—Austin 2017, pet. denied) ...................................26
Mission Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Garcia,
372 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. 2012) ..............................................................................29
Muir v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin,
No. 03-22-00196-CV, 2023 WL 4110843 (Tex. App.—Austin June 22,
2023, no pet.) ............................................................................................... 12, 24
Qatar Found. for Educ., Sci. & Cmty. Dev. v. Zachor Legal Inst.,
627 S.W.3d 674, 680 (Tex. App.—Austin 2021, pet. denied) ...........................27

4
Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda,
133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) ................................................................. 20, 29, 31
Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Sefzik,
355 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. 2011) ..............................................................................31
Tex. S. Univ. v. Young,
682 S.W.3d 886 (Tex. 2023) ..............................................................................29
Thomas v. Cornyn,
71 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.) ............................................25
Univ. of Tex. Sys. v. Franklin Ctr. for Gov’t & Pub. Integrity,
675 S.W.3d 273 (Tex. 2023) ..............................................................................20

Statutes
Tex. Gov’t Code § 420A.002(a) ..............................................................................14
Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.001(a) .................................................................................20
Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.001(b) .................................................................................20
Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.023......................................................................................11
Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.1345............................................................................. 15, 16
Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.201(a) .................................................................................28
Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.202............................................................................... 28, 30
Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.203......................................................................................28
Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.221(a) .................................................................................28
Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.301............................................................................... 11, 15
Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.321.............................................................................. passim
Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.321(a) .................................................................... 18, 21, 23
Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.321(b) .................................................................................21
Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.3215(e) ...............................................................................27
Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.3215(g)-(i) ..........................................................................27
Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.324............................................................................... 19, 27
Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.324(a) .................................................................................27
Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.325(a) .................................................................................27
Tex. Health & Safety Code § 841.007 .....................................................................14
Tex. Health & Safety Code § 841.061 .....................................................................14
5
Other Authorities
About TCCO, https://tcco.texas.gov/about-tcco ......................................................14
Attorney General of Texas, Public Information Coordinator Database
Search, https://www.oag.state.tx.us/pic-contact-info-
database?keyword=civil+commitment ...............................................................30
The Office of The Attorney General of Texas, Public Information Act
Handbook 2024,
https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/files/divisions/op
en-government/publicinfo_hb.pdf ......................................................................25

6
RECORD REFERENCES

Clerk’s Record. The Clerk’s Record is referred to as: “CR____,” where the

consecutive page number will fill the blank.

Reporter’s Record. The Reporter’s Record is referred to as: “RR____,” where the

pdf page number will fill the blank.

7
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Nature of the This is a mandamus proceeding seeking information under the
Case: Texas Public Information Act that was dismissed on a plea to the
jurisdiction.

Trial Court: Hon. Laurie Eiserloh, 455th Judicial District of Travis County.

Course of Appellant Stephen Patrick Black filed a petition for writ of
Proceedings: mandamus pursuant to Texas Government Code §552.321. CR4-
34. The petition challenges a decision to withhold information
under the Public Information Act. Respondent-Appellee filed a
plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that the trial court lacked subject-
matter jurisdiction. CR56-59. The court held an oral hearing on the
plea. CR91.

Trial Court The trial court granted the plea to the jurisdiction, and dismissed
Disposition: Black’s claims. CR106. The court designated the judgment as a
final judgment. CR2-3, 107.

8
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Counsel requests oral argument because they are representing Black pro bono

as part of the Austin Court of Appeals pro-bono program.

In addition, oral argument would assist the Court in resolving an issue of first

impression for the Fifteenth Court of Appeals. This is a Texas Public Information

Act dispute regarding the jurisdiction of courts to review decisions withholding

public information. While Supreme Court and Austin Court of Appeals precedent

address this issue, the Fifteenth Court of Appeals has no precedent on point.

Accordingly, oral argument would be beneficial to the court.

9
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED

Appellant Stephen Patrick Black requested copies of his own records from the

Texas Civil Commitment Office (the “TCCO”) under the Texas Public Information

Act (“TPIA”). The TCCO, through its attorney, Appellee Hayley Glisson, sought an

Attorney General opinion related to that information, and withheld the information

based on that opinion. Black then filed a petition for writ of mandamus under

Government Code §552.321, which allows requestors to compel a governmental

body to make information available “if the governmental body… refuses to supply

public information.”

1. Did the trial court err when it granted Appellee’s plea to the jurisdiction

and dismissed Black’s mandamus petition?

10
INTRODUCTION

The Texas Public Information Act (“TPIA”) requires that governmental

bodies produce “public information” so that the public can remain informed about

the affairs of government. In addition, Texas has long recognized a common-law

right of access to one’s own records. See Hutchins v. Tex. Rehab. Comm’n, 544

S.W.2d 802, 803-04 (Tex. App.—Austin 1976, no pet.) (holding a former patient

had a right to her own hospital records notwithstanding state privacy laws shielding

those records). The TPIA has codified that right and provides that individuals have

a “special right of access” to their own information held by the government. Tex.

Gov’t Code §552.023. This case is about Appellant Stephen Patrick Black’s attempts

to access his own records, and the government’s refusal to provide that information.

Here, Black submitted a request to the Texas Civil Commitment Office

(“TCCO”) where he is civilly committed, and requested his own records relating to

his treatment. CR10. The TCCO, through its attorney, Hayley Glisson, sought an

opinion from the Texas Attorney General to allow the TCCO to withhold that

information. CR10; Tex. Gov’t Code §552.301. But the TCCO did not identify that

the records at issue were Black’s own records, nor address the special right of access

under Government Code §552.023. The Attorney General ruled that TCCO must

withhold the information based on a generally applicable privacy provision. CR10.

The TCCO then withheld Black’s information based on that ruling. CR10.

11
But this appeal is not about whether Black is ultimately entitled to his records.

Instead, this appeal is about whether Black can challenge the Attorney General’s

decision, or the TCCO’s subsequent withholding of information, at all. Both the text

of the TPIA and precedent make clear that he can; yet the district court held that

jurisdiction was improper and failed to address the merits of the challenge.

Black invoked Government Code §552.321 to challenge those decisions via a

writ of mandamus. Government Code §552.321 authorizes a requestor seeking

information to “compel[] a governmental body to make information available for

public inspection if the governmental body…refuses to supply public information.”

Tex. Gov’t Code §552.321. Both the Texas Supreme Court and the Austin Court of

Appeals have held that §552.321 waives governmental immunity for a requestor

seeking to challenge the withholding of information, whether or not the Attorney

General has issued an opinion regarding that information. Kallinen v. City of

Houston, 462 S.W.3d 25 (Tex. 2015); Muir v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, No. 03-22-

00196-CV, 2023 WL 4110843, at *4 (Tex. App.—Austin June 22, 2023, no pet.)

(holding that “seeking an attorney general’s decision . . . and then withholding some

of the material based on that decision” is “refusing to supply” public information

under Government Code §552.321). This should have been an easy application of

that precedent.

12
However, Appellee filed a plea to the jurisdiction and argued that the TCCO’s

withholding of information based on an Attorney General opinion is not reviewable

by mandamus under §552.321. That argument was based on a misreading of

§552.321, and is contrary to Texas Supreme Court authority. In fact, Black cited the

relevant Texas Supreme Court and Austin Court of Appeals decisions in his pro se

opposition. CR73-74. Nonetheless, the district court accepted Appellee’s arguments

and dismissed Black’s petition in its entirety.

This Court should reverse and clarify the scope of the trial court’s jurisdiction

under the TPIA. While Texas Supreme Court authority has already decided this

issue, further guidance is needed to clarify to the Attorney General and the district

courts about the scope of §552.321. This Court should reverse and hold that the

Attorney General’s TPIA decisions are subject to review, and that the trial court had

jurisdiction under §552.321 to determine whether the TCCO improperly withheld

public information. Accordingly, this Court should remand to allow the trial court to

determine the merits of whether Black is entitled to his own records under the TPIA.

13
STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. Appellant Stephen Patrick Black submits a request for information
under the Texas Public Information Act.

Appellant Black submitted a request for public information to the TCCO on

or about October 29, 2024. CR10, 21-22 (letter dated October 25, 2024); CR24

(letter acknowledging receipt on October 29, 2024). The TCCO is a state agency

responsible for “providing appropriate and necessary treatment and supervision for

committed persons through the case management system” and “developing and

implementing a sex offender treatment program for persons committed under

[Health and Safety Code Chapter 841].” Tex. Health & Safety Code §841.007; Tex.

Gov’t Code §420A.002(a). The TCCO headquarters is in Austin, Texas. TCCO,

About TCCO, https://tcco.texas.gov/about-tcco (last accessed Jan. 5, 2026).2

The request sought Black’s own information held by TCCO in several

categories. CR21-22. Appellant Black was civilly committed on April 7, 2016,

pursuant to Texas Health and Safety Code §841.061. CR10. He is currently in the

care of the TCCO at the Texas Civil Commitment Center (“TCCC”) located in

Littlefield, Texas. CR10.

2
Courts may take judicial notice of the contents of a government website. Alsobrook
v. MTGLQ Inv’rs, LP, 657 S.W.3d 327, 330 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2021), review
granted, decision aff’d as modified, 656 S.W.3d 394 (Tex. 2022).
14
TCCO, through Appellee Hayley Glisson, requested an Attorney General

opinion regarding the information request, pursuant to Texas Government Code

§552.301. CR26-28. The opinion request asserted that the information is exempt

from disclosure under Texas Government Code §552.1345, which provides that

information maintained by the TCCO is exempt from disclosure “if it is information

about a person civilly committed” to the TCCO. CR26-28.

The Attorney General issued its decision on January 23, 2025. CR31-32. The

opinion, OR2025-002424 (the “AG Opinion”), determined that the information is

exempt from public disclosure under Texas Government Code §552.1345. CR31-

32. TCCO withheld the information based on the AG Opinion. CR10.

II. Black files a mandamus proceeding in Travis County challenging the AG
Opinion and TCCO’s denial.

Black challenged the Attorney General’s decision and the TCCO’s decision

to withhold documents by filing a mandamus petition in Travis County District

Court on February 10, 2025. CR4. Black named as respondent:

Hayley Glisson
General Counsel
Texas Civil Commitment Office
4616 West Howard Lane
Building 2, Suite 350
Austin, Texas 78725

15
CR5. Further, he requested “relief from Texas Attorney General’s opinion

withholding from disclosure, information he requested from the Texas Civil

Commitment Office.” CR9. He presented a single issue for the district court:

“Did the Texas Civil Commitment Office and the Texas Attorney General

abuse their discretion by withholding public information, pursuant to Tex.

Gov’t Code § 552.1345, that are Requestor’s own records?” CR9, 11.

III. The trial court grants Appellee’s plea to the jurisdiction.

Appellee challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction. CR56-59. Black filed an

opposition to the plea to the jurisdiction and cited relevant authority. CR72-81. The

trial court conducted a hearing on August 12, 2025. CR102.

At the hearing, counsel for Appellee argued that mandamus relief can only be

granted in two circumstances: (1) “when the governmental entity does not request a

letter ruling from the [Office of the Attorney General],” or (2) “when the [Office of

the Attorney General] says release the documents and they refuse.” RR5. Appellant

Black disagreed, and argued that various authorities allow for a mandamus

proceeding against the relevant governmental body to challenge the Attorney

General’s decision. RR8.

The trial court granted the plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed “all of

Plaintiff Black’s claims against Respondent in their entirety.” CR106. The court

signed the final judgment on August 12, 2025. CR106.

16
Black immediately transmitted his notice of appeal, which was received by

the trial court on August 21, 2025. CR114-16. Black then filed an amended notice

of appeal in the trial court. CR121-22.

17
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The TPIA expressly authorizes judicial review of decisions to withhold public

information, regardless of whether an Attorney General decision has been requested

or issued. The plain language of Government Code §552.321 authorizes review by

mandamus in three circumstances:

1. the governmental body “refuses to request an attorney general’s
decision,”
2. the governmental body refuses to supply “public information,”
and
3. the governmental body refuses to supply “information that the
attorney general has determined is public information that is not
excepted from disclosure.”

Tex. Gov’t Code §552.321(a). The Texas Supreme Court has explained those three

circumstances mean that requestors can seek judicial review of a decision

withholding information regardless of whether an Attorney General decision has

been requested or issued. Kallinen v. City of Houston, 462 S.W.3d 25 (Tex. 2015).

Despite that plain language and clear command, the trial court granted

Appellee’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed this suit. But the trial court erred,

and all of Appellee’s arguments are wrong.

First, Appellee simply ignored the second circumstance identified by the

Supreme Court. According to Appellee, only the first and third circumstances

authorize review. But Appellee is misreading plain language and contrary precedent

from the Supreme Court and Third Court of Appeals. Infra §I.A.
18
Second, all of Appellee’s counterarguments are wrong. Appellee primarily

contends that this is an improper ultra vires action. But Black did not rely on the

ultra vires doctrine—he relied on plain statutory authority. Infra §I.B.1. Appellee

also suggested that Black chose the wrong type of action and should have sought

declaratory relief against the Attorney General. But Appellee is again misreading the

relevant statutes, as the TPIA does not authorize requestors to sue the Attorney

General; rather, governmental bodies are authorized to seek declaratory relief if they

disagree with an Attorney General decision. Infra §I.B.2; see also Tex. Gov’t Code

§552.324. Finally, to the extent Appellee complains that Black named an individual

rather than the TCCO itself, that is also foreclosed by Texas Supreme Court

precedent, as the proper party in a TPIA proceeding is the “officer for public

information” rather than the governmental body itself. Infra §I.B.3.

To the extent Appellee Hayley Glisson is not the appropriate officer for public

information, the trial court should have allowed Black to amend his petition to name

the correct party. But Appellee has not challenged jurisdiction on that basis, nor has

she identified the appropriate responsible party. But considering Black’s intent as

the pleader, it is plain that Black is seeking review under the TPIA and the court

should identify any deficiencies in the pleadings so that Black may correct them.

The trial court should have denied the plea to the jurisdiction and evaluated

the merits of Black’s TPIA claims. The trial court’s ruling must be reversed.

19
ARGUMENT

The trial court erroneously granted Appellee’s plea to the jurisdiction, and this

Court should reverse and remand for further proceedings. On a plea to the

jurisdiction, courts “construe the pleadings liberally in favor of the plaintiffs and

look to the pleaders’ intent.” Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d

217, 226 (Tex. 2004). If the pleadings “do not affirmatively demonstrate incurable

defects in jurisdiction,” then the plaintiff “should be afforded the opportunity to

amend.” Id. The plea may be granted without leave to amend only “[i]f the pleadings

affirmatively negate the existence of jurisdiction.” Id. at 227. Whether the facts

alleged establish jurisdiction is a question of law subject to de novo review. Id. at

226. Here, the pleadings affirmatively establish jurisdiction in this TPIA challenge.

I. The trial court had jurisdiction over all of Black’s claims and should not
have dismissed the case.
Texas public policy, as declared in the TPIA, is that “each person is entitled,

unless otherwise expressly provided by law, at all times to complete information

about the affairs of government.” Tex. Gov’t Code §552.001(a). “The Act is to be

liberally construed in favor of granting requests for information.” Univ. of Tex. Sys.

v. Franklin Ctr. for Gov’t & Pub. Integrity, 675 S.W.3d 273, 279 (Tex. 2023); Tex.

Gov’t Code §552.001(b). One of the ways the TPIA ensures the public’s right of

access is by authorizing judicial review of decisions to withhold public information.

Specifically, Government Code §552.321 provides:
20
(a) A requestor [Black] or the attorney general may file suit for a writ
of mandamus compelling a governmental body to make information
available for public inspection if the governmental body [the TCCO]
refuses to request an attorney general’s decision as provided by
Subchapter G or refuses to supply public information or information
that the attorney general has determined is public information that is
not excepted from disclosure under Subchapter C.
Tex. Gov’t Code §552.321(a) (emphases added). Such suits must be filed in a district

court in the county “in which the main offices of the governmental body are located.”

Id. §552.321(b). Here, it is undisputed that Travis County is the appropriate venue,

as TCCO’s main offices are located in Travis County.3

Black followed this process and filed a mandamus action to compel release of

information by the Texas Civil Commitment Office. Black, as the requestor, filed

suit seeking a writ of mandamus contending that the Texas Civil Commitment Office

“refuses to supply public information.” Tex. Gov’t Code §552.321(a); CR10

(“Relator now files this petition for writ of mandamus, challenging Respondent’s

refusal to produce the requested public information[.]”). Black specifically invoked

the authority of §552.321 as the basis for this mandamus petition. CR12-13. The trial

court erred by dismissing this case.

3
See CR5 (alleging Appellee’s address is in Austin, Texas); TCCO, About TCCO,
https://tcco.texas.gov/about-tcco (last accessed Jan. 5, 2026). Courts may take
judicial notice of the contents of a government website. Alsobrook, 657 S.W.3d at
330.
21
A. Appellee’s arguments about §552.321 are contrary to Texas
Supreme Court precedent.
Despite the plain language of §552.321, Appellee sought dismissal through a

plea to the jurisdiction. CR56-59. Appellee’s argument in the trial court was thin,

but her analysis of §552.321 argued that the suit cannot be maintained because

Appellee Glisson “requested an Attorney General Opinion” and the “Opinion

considered the information excepted from disclosure.” CR58-59. At the hearing,

counsel for Appellee argued that there are only “two instances” in which mandamus

is authorized: (1) “when the governmental entity does not request a letter ruling from

the OAG” and (2) “when the OAG says release the documents and they refuse.”

RR5. In essence, Appellee contends that so long as the governmental body complies

with the Attorney General’s opinion, the courts lack jurisdiction to review the

correctness of that decision. But Appellee is ignoring key statutory language and

contrary Supreme Court authority.

The Texas Supreme Court rejected Appellee’s arguments in Kallinen v. City

of Houston, 462 S.W.3d 25 (Tex. 2015). There, the governmental body requested an

attorney general opinion, but the attorney general closed its file and did not issue an

opinion. Id. at 27. The governmental body filed a plea to the jurisdiction and argued

that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because mandamus relief is only available to

“compel[] a governmental body to request an Attorney General’s decision and then

comply with it.” Id. at 28. The Supreme Court emphatically rejected that argument.
22
The Court explained that §552.321 authorizes challenges in three

circumstances, which the Court designated as conditions A, B1, and B2. Id. at 27.

Condition A, is when the governmental body “refuses to request an attorney

general’s decision.” Id. (quoting Tex. Gov’t Code §552.321(a)). Conditions B1 and

B2 relate to the refusal to supply either “[1] public information or [2] information

that the attorney general has determined is public information that is not excepted

from disclosure.” Id. (quoting Tex. Gov’t Code §552.321(a)) (alterations in

original)). The Court explained that the phrase “public information” in B1 is broader

than “information that the Attorney General has determined is public information”

in B2, meaning that mandamus can be sought regardless of whether an Attorney

General opinion is requested or issued. Id. at 28. Limiting mandamus relief to

compel compliance with Attorney General decisions would mean that the Attorney

General’s “decision would be unreviewable.” Id. But Texas courts “have reviewed

the Attorney General’s rulings.” Id. (collecting cases)

Appellee’s arguments are contrary to Kallinen. The “two instances” identified

by Appellee as appropriate bases for mandamus relief correspond with conditions A

and B2 in Kallinen. RR5; 462 S.W.3d at 27. But Appellee completely ignores the

language in B1, which allows challenges for any decision to withhold “public

information.” 462 S.W.3d at 28.

23
Bases for review in Kallinen: Bases for review according to
Appellee:
A. “refuses to request an attorney “when the governmental entity does not
general’s decision” request a letter ruling from the OAG”
RR5.
B1. “refuses to supply public
information”
B2. “refuses to supply… information “when the OAG says release the
that the attorney general has documents and they refuse.” RR5.
determined is public information
that is not excepted from
disclosure under Subchapter C.”

The Supreme Court is not the only court to have rejected Appellee’s argument.

Applying Kallinen, the Austin Court of Appeals concluded that “seeking an attorney

general’s decision . . . and then withholding some of the material based on that

decision” is “refusing to supply” public information. Muir v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin,

No. 03-22-00196-CV, 2023 WL 4110843, at *4 (Tex. App.—Austin, June 22, 2023,

no pet.). In Muir, the governmental entity obtained an Attorney General opinion that

some documents were confidential, and the governmental entity withheld those

documents. Id. at *1. The requestor sued, challenging whether those withheld

documents were subject to disclosure, and the Austin Court of Appeals concluded

that the court had jurisdiction to review that challenge. Id. at *5. That is precisely

what Black is seeking here—judicial review of the Attorney General’s determination

that information is not subject to disclosure.

24
In fact, the Attorney General’s annual handbook on the TPIA acknowledges

that “Section 552.321 authorizes a mandamus suit to compel the release of

information even if the attorney general has ruled such information is not subject to

required public disclosure.” The Office of The Attorney General of Texas, Public

Information Act Handbook 2024, at 60,

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/files/divisions/open-

government/publicinfo_hb.pdf. That handbook itself cites Thomas v. Cornyn, which

explains that “[a] requestor may bring a mandamus action regardless of whether an

attorney general’s opinion has been requested or despite the issuance of an adverse

attorney general’s opinion that favors the withholding of the information.” 71

S.W.3d 473, 483 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.) (emphasis added).

This mountain of authority explains that the trial court had jurisdiction.

Appellee is misreading, or ignoring, relevant authority, and the trial court erred by

dismissing the case.

B. Appellee’s other arguments are wrong.

Appellee made various arguments against jurisdiction in the trial court, but all

of them are wrong.

25
1. Black did not intend an ultra vires action, and this Court does
not need to decide whether withholding public information is
ultra vires.

Appellee argued that this is an improper ultra vires suit, and therefore this

Court lacked jurisdiction. CR56-59; see also City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d

366, 372 (Tex. 2009) (explaining the ultra vires doctrine). But Black did not rely on

the ultra vires doctrine and need not do so, as Government Code §552.321 provides

a statutory waiver of immunity. Withholding public information can give rise to an

ultra vires claim, which generally requires showing that the official acted “without

legal authority.” Hall v. McRaven, 508 S.W.3d 232, 238 (Tex. 2017). An officer acts

without legal authority when the officer has “some discretion to interpret and apply

a law,” but then “exceeds the bounds of his granted authority or if his acts conflict

with the law itself.” Id. Thus, an officer that withholds public information in

“conflict with the law itself” would act ultra vires and courts would have jurisdiction

to review that conduct.4

4
The Austin Court of Appeals previously held that ultra vires claims are not
available in a TPIA proceeding because of the redundant remedies doctrine. McLane
Co., Inc. v. Tex. Alcoholic Beverage Comm’n, 514 S.W.3d 871, 877 (Tex. App.—
Austin 2017, pet. denied). However, the Fifteenth Court of Appeals “is not bound
by precedent of the Third Court of Appeals.” Kensington Title-Nevada, LLC v. Tex.
Dep’t of State Health Servs., 710 S.W.3d 225, 231 n.4 (Tex. 2025). Moreover, there
is a serious question whether McLane is correct, as the Supreme Court recently
explained that the redundant remedies doctrine limits remedies, not claims. Gonzalez
v. Tex. Med. Bd., 722 S.W.3d 848, 852 (Tex. 2025).
26
But ultimately, this Court need not evaluate this issue because Black is not

relying on the ultra vires doctrine and is instead relying on the plain statutory

authority of Government Code §552.321.

2. Black could not have sought declaratory relief against the
Attorney General.

Appellant Black could not have sued the Attorney General, as Appellee

suggested he should have done. RR9. At the hearing, Appellee argued that Black

should have “filed a lawsuit against the attorney general.” RR9. But the TPIA does

not authorize individual requestors to sue the Attorney General for relief. Instead,

Government Code §552.324 allows a governmental body to “seek[] declaratory

relief from compliance with a decision by the attorney general.” Tex. Gov’t Code

§552.324(a). A requestor is permitted to intervene in such a suit. Tex. Gov’t Code

§552.325(a). But those provisions apply when the governmental body or “other

person or entity” is “seeking to withhold information from a requestor.” Tex. Gov’t

Code §552.325(a); Qatar Found. for Educ., Sci. & Cmty. Dev. v. Zachor Legal Inst.,

627 S.W.3d 674, 680 (Tex. App.—Austin 2021, pet. denied) (holding that §552.325

authorizes third-parties to seek declaratory relief when they are “seeking to withhold

information”). Those provisions do not apply because Black is not “seeking to

withhold information from a requestor”—he is the requestor seeking the records.

Apart from the mandamus proceedings, a requestor who alleges a violation of

the TPIA is limited to filing a “complaint” with the appropriate district attorney. Tex.
27
Gov’t Code §552.3215(e). But a complainant cannot bring suit under that provision

himself. Tex. Gov’t Code §552.3215(g)-(i) (explaining that the district attorney or

attorney general’s office decides whether to bring a suit). Black followed the

appropriate procedure here and filed a mandamus proceeding as authorized by the

TPIA.

3. Black named the proper parties, the officer for public
information and the governmental body itself.
To the extent Appellee argues that §552.321 requires naming the

governmental body itself, and not an individual, that too is foreclosed by Texas

Supreme Court precedent. A & T Consultants, Inc. v. Sharp, 904 S.W.2d 668, 673

(Tex. 1995). In A & T Consultants, the Supreme Court concluded that the “proper

party” in a TPIA suit is the officer for public information rather than the

governmental body itself. Id. at 672-73. That is because the obligations under the

TPIA are imposed upon the “officer for public information.” Guthrie v. Garcia, 352

S.W.3d 307, 309-10 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.); Tex. Gov’t

Code §§552.203 (“[e]ach officer for public information . . . shall . . . make public

information available for public inspection and copying”), 552.221(a) (“[a]n officer

for public information of a governmental body shall promptly produce public

information for inspection, duplication, or both on application by any person to the

officer”). The officer for public information is the “chief administrative officer” of

the governmental body. Tex. Gov’t Code §552.201(a). And “[e]ach department head
28
is an agent of the officer for public information” under the TPIA. Tex. Gov’t Code

§552.202.

Taking the facts as alleged in Black’s petition as true, Appellee Glisson is the

officer for public information, or an agent of the officer for public information. On

a pleadings-based challenge, the court must take the facts alleged as true and

evaluate jurisdiction. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226-28. Construing the pleadings

liberally based on Black’s intent, his intent was plainly to allege that Glisson is the

responsible person for the decision. CR5 (alleging Appellee is the General Counsel

of the TCCO).

To the extent Appellee challenges that determination as a factual matter, she

did not present any evidence at the hearing. The identity of the chief administrative

officer is sometimes a question of fact. Keever v. Finlan, 988 S.W.2d 300, 305 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 1999, pet. dism’d) (reviewing summary judgment evidence that

established school superintendent was the chief administrative officer of the district).

And courts should allow a “reasonable opportunity for targeted discovery” to resolve

jurisdictional fact disputes. See Tex. S. Univ. v. Young, 682 S.W.3d 886, 888 (Tex.

2023) (Young, J. concurring in denial of review) (quoting Mission Consol. Indep.

Sch. Dist. v. Garcia, 372 S.W.3d 629, 642-43 (Tex. 2012)). Here, Appellee did not

challenge that she was the officer for public information nor introduce any evidence

29
of the identity of the chief administrative officer for TCCO, much less provide any

discovery on that ground.

But there is evidence that Appellee is the proper defendant. Appellee Glisson

is currently designated as the officer for receiving public information requests on

behalf of the TCCO.5

And Appellee is alleged to be the general counsel of TCCO, i.e., a department head,

and therefore at least an “agent” of the officer for public information. Tex. Gov’t

Code §552.202.

5
Attorney General of Texas, Public Information Coordinator Database Search,
https://www.oag.state.tx.us/pic-contact-info-database?keyword=civil+commitment
(last accessed Jan. 5, 2026).
30
In any event, even if Appellee is not the chief administrative officer for

TCCO, such pleading defect is not grounds for dismissal. On a plea to the

jurisdiction, courts “construe the pleadings liberally in favor of the plaintiffs and

look to the pleaders’ intent.” Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226. If the pleadings “do not

affirmatively demonstrate incurable defects in jurisdiction,” then the plaintiff

“should be afforded the opportunity to amend.” Id. Courts must “allow the plaintiff

the opportunity to replead if the defect can be cured.” Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. Sefzik,

355 S.W.3d 618, 623 (Tex. 2011) (allowing the plaintiff to replead and name the

proper defendant in an ultra vires suit). If Appellee identifies a different officer for

public information, Black will amend and seek relief against that individual.

Here, Black’s intent could not have been more clear—he invoked the proper

statutory authority to challenge the decision to withhold information, and he named

the official responsible for that decision. Under this posture, which solely evaluates

the pleadings, Black sufficiently invoked the court’s jurisdiction. But if there is a

dispute about the appropriate official to be named, the trial court should have given

Black an opportunity to amend to clarify that he is seeking relief directly against the

appropriate officer for public information.

PRAYER

Black prays that this Court (1) reverse the judgment granting the plea to the

jurisdiction and (2) remand to evaluate the merits of Black’s claims, including any

31
potential amendments to the mandamus petition. Black further prays for all other

relief to which he is entitled.

DATED: January 5, 2026

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Ethan Nutter
Ethan Nutter
Texas Bar No. 24104988
VINSON & ELKINS LLP
200 West 6th Street, Suite 2500
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 542-8555 (Telephone)
(512) 236-3239 (Facsimile)
enutter@velaw.com

Attorney for Appellant

32
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that the foregoing document contains 4,425 words, excluding the

portions excluded by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(1). It was prepared

in Microsoft Word using 14-point typeface for body text and 14-point typeface for

footnotes. In making this certificate of compliance, I am relying on the word count

provided by the software used to prepare the document.

/s/ Ethan Nutter
Ethan Nutter

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on January 5, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing

document was served on all counsel of record by electronic filing.

/s/ Ethan Nutter
Ethan Nutter

33
APPENDIX

A Trial Court’s Final Judgment (CR106)

B Statutory Provisions

Tex. Gov’t Code §552.023
Tex. Gov’t Code §552.1345
Tex. Gov’t Code §552.201
Tex. Gov’t Code §552.202
Tex. Gov’t Code §552.203
Tex. Gov’t Code §552.221
Tex. Gov’t Code §552.301
Tex. Gov’t Code §552.321
Tex. Gov’t Code §552.3215
Tex. Gov’t Code §552.324
Tex. Gov’t Code §552.325

C Optional Contents:

Mandamus Petition (CR4-18)

Respondent’s Amended Plea to the jurisdiction and
Answer (CR56-61)

Relator’s Opposition to Respondent’s Amended Plea
to the Jurisdiction and Answer (CR72-81)

Reporters Records excerpts (RR4-12)

34
Appendix A
08/15/2025 12:43:07 PM
Velva L. Price
District Clerk
Travis County
D-1-GN-25-001039

08/26/2025 10:37:43

Page 106
Appendix B
§ 552.023. Special Right of Access to Confidential Information, TX GOVT § 552.023

Vernon's Texas Statutes and Codes Annotated
Government Code (Refs & Annos)
Title 5. Open Government; Ethics (Refs & Annos)
Subtitle A. Open Government
Chapter 552. Public Information (Refs & Annos)
Subchapter B. Right of Access to Public Information

V.T.C.A., Government Code § 552.023

§ 552.023. Special Right of Access to Confidential Information

Currentness

(a) A person or a person's authorized representative has a special right of access, beyond the right of the general public, to
information held by a governmental body that relates to the person and that is protected from public disclosure by laws intended
to protect that person's privacy interests.

(b) A governmental body may not deny access to information to the person, or the person's representative, to whom the
information relates on the grounds that the information is considered confidential by privacy principles under this chapter but
may assert as grounds for denial of access other provisions of this chapter or other law that are not intended to protect the
person's privacy interests.

(d) A person who receives information under this section may disclose the information to others only to the extent consistent
with the authorized purposes for which consent to release the information was obtained.

(e) Access to information under this section shall be provided in the manner prescribed by Sections 552.229 and 552.307.

Credits
Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 268, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 1035, § 4, eff. Sept.
1, 1995.

V. T. C. A., Government Code § 552.023, TX GOVT § 552.023
Current through the end of the 2025 Regular and Second Called Sessions of the 89th Legislature.

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
§ 552.1345. Exception: Confidentiality of Certain Information..., TX GOVT § 552.1345

V.T.C.A., Government Code § 552.1345

§ 552.1345. Exception: Confidentiality of Certain Information Relating to Civilly Committed Sexually Violent Predators

Currentness

(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), information obtained or maintained by the Texas Civil Commitment Office is excepted
from the requirements of Section 552.021 if it is information about a person who is civilly committed as a sexually violent
predator under Chapter 841, Health and Safety Code.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to statistical or other aggregated information relating to persons civilly committed to one or
more facilities operated by or under a contract with the office.

Credits
Added by Acts 2023, 88th Leg., ch. 351 (S.B. 1179), § 15, eff. Sept. 1, 2023.

V. T. C. A., Government Code § 552.1345, TX GOVT § 552.1345
Current through the end of the 2025 Regular and Second Called Sessions of the 89th Legislature.

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
§ 552.201. Identity of Officer for Public Information, TX GOVT § 552.201

V.T.C.A., Government Code § 552.201

§ 552.201. Identity of Officer for Public Information

Currentness

(a) The chief administrative officer of a governmental body is the officer for public information, except as provided by
Subsection (b).

(b) Each elected county officer is the officer for public information and the custodian, as defined by Section 201.003, Local
Government Code, of the information created or received by that county officer's office.

Credits
Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 268, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 1035, § 14, eff. Sept.
1, 1995.

V. T. C. A., Government Code § 552.201, TX GOVT § 552.201
Current through the end of the 2025 Regular and Second Called Sessions of the 89th Legislature.

V.T.C.A., Government Code § 552.202

§ 552.202. Department Heads

Currentness

Each department head is an agent of the officer for public information for the purposes of complying with this chapter.

Credits
Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 268, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 1035, § 14, eff. Sept.
1, 1995.

V. T. C. A., Government Code § 552.202, TX GOVT § 552.202
Current through the end of the 2025 Regular and Second Called Sessions of the 89th Legislature.

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
§ 552.203. General Duties of Officer for Public Information, TX GOVT § 552.203

V.T.C.A., Government Code § 552.203

§ 552.203. General Duties of Officer for Public Information

Currentness

Each officer for public information, subject to penalties provided in this chapter, shall:

(1) make public information available for public inspection and copying;

(2) carefully protect public information from deterioration, alteration, mutilation, loss, or unlawful removal;

(3) repair, renovate, or rebind public information as necessary to maintain it properly; and

(4) make reasonable efforts to obtain public information from a temporary custodian if:

(A) the information has been requested from the governmental body;

(B) the officer for public information is aware of facts sufficient to warrant a reasonable belief that the temporary custodian
has possession, custody, or control of the information;

(C) the officer for public information is unable to comply with the duties imposed by this chapter without obtaining the
information from the temporary custodian; and

(D) the temporary custodian has not provided the information to the officer for public information or the officer's agent.

Credits
Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 268, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 1035, § 14, eff. Sept.
1, 1995; Acts 2019, 86th Leg., ch. 1340 (S.B. 944), § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 2019.

V. T. C. A., Government Code § 552.203, TX GOVT § 552.203
Current through the end of the 2025 Regular and Second Called Sessions of the 89th Legislature.

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
§ 552.221. Application for Public Information; Production of..., TX GOVT § 552.221

V.T.C.A., Government Code § 552.221

§ 552.221. Application for Public Information; Production of Public Information

Currentness

(a) An officer for public information of a governmental body shall promptly produce public information for inspection,
duplication, or both on application by any person to the officer. In this subsection, “promptly” means as soon as possible under
the circumstances, that is, within a reasonable time, without delay.

(b) An officer for public information complies with Subsection (a) by:

(1) providing the public information for inspection or duplication in the offices of the governmental body; or

(2) sending copies of the public information by first class United States mail if the person requesting the information requests
that copies be provided and pays the postage and any other applicable charges that the requestor has accrued under Subchapter
F. 1

(b-1) In addition to the methods of production described by Subsection (b), an officer for public information for a governmental
body complies with Subsection (a) by referring a requestor to an exact Internet location or uniform resource locator (URL)
address on a website maintained by the governmental body and accessible to the public if the requested information is identifiable
and readily available on that website. If the person requesting the information prefers a manner other than access through the
URL, the governmental body must supply the information in the manner required by Subsection (b).

(b-2) If an officer for public information for a governmental body provides by e-mail an Internet location or uniform resource
locator (URL) address as permitted by Subsection (b-1), the e-mail must contain a statement in a conspicuous font clearly
indicating that the requestor may nonetheless access the requested information by inspection or duplication or by receipt through
United States mail, as provided by Subsection (b).

(c) If the requested information is unavailable at the time of the request to examine because it is in active use or in storage, the
officer for public information shall certify this fact in writing to the requestor and set a date and hour within a reasonable time
when the information will be available for inspection or duplication.

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
§ 552.221. Application for Public Information; Production of..., TX GOVT § 552.221

(d) If an officer for public information cannot produce public information for inspection or duplication within 10 business days
after the date the information is requested under Subsection (a), the officer shall certify that fact in writing to the requestor and
set a date and hour within a reasonable time when the information will be available for inspection or duplication.

(e) A request is considered to have been withdrawn if the requestor fails to inspect or duplicate the public information in the
offices of the governmental body on or before the 60th day after the date the information is made available or fails to pay the
postage and any other applicable charges accrued under Subchapter F on or before the 60th day after the date the requestor
is informed of the charges.

(f) If the governmental body determines it has no information responsive to a request for information, the officer for public
information shall notify the requestor in writing not later than the 10th business day after the date the request is received.

(g) If a governmental body determines the requested information is subject to a previous determination that permits or requires
the governmental body to withhold the requested information, the officer for public information shall, not later than the 10th
business day after the date the request is received:

(1) notify the requestor in writing that the information is being withheld; and

(2) identify in the notice the specific previous determination the governmental body is relying on to withhold the requested
information.

Credits
Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 268, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 1035, § 15, eff. Sept.
1, 1995; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1231, § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1319, § 12, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts
2003, 78th Leg., ch. 791, § 1, eff. June 20, 2003; Acts 2015, 84th Leg., ch. 692 (H.B. 685), § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2015; Acts 2017,
85th Leg., ch. 520 (S.B. 79), § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2017; Acts 2017, 85th Leg., ch. 894 (H.B. 3107), § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2017; Acts
2025, 89th Leg., ch. 452 (H.B. 4219), § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2025.

Footnotes

1 V.T.C.A., Government Code § 552.261 et seq.

V. T. C. A., Government Code § 552.221, TX GOVT § 552.221
Current through the end of the 2025 Regular and Second Called Sessions of the 89th Legislature.

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2
§ 552.301. Request for Attorney General Decision, TX GOVT § 552.301

V.T.C.A., Government Code § 552.301

§ 552.301. Request for Attorney General Decision

Currentness

(a) A governmental body that receives a written request for information that it wishes to withhold from public disclosure and
that it considers to be within one of the exceptions under Subchapter C 1 must ask for a decision from the attorney general about
whether the information is within that exception if there has not been a previous determination about whether the information
falls within one of the exceptions.

(a-1) For the purposes of this subchapter, if a governmental body receives a written request by United States mail and cannot
adequately establish the actual date on which the governmental body received the request, the written request is considered to
have been received by the governmental body on the third business day after the date of the postmark on a properly addressed
request.

(b) The governmental body must ask for the attorney general's decision and state the specific exceptions that apply within a
reasonable time but not later than the 10th business day after the date of receiving the written request.

(d) A governmental body that requests an attorney general decision under Subsection (a) must provide to the requestor within
a reasonable time but not later than the 10th business day after the date of receiving the requestor's written request:

(1) a written statement that the governmental body wishes to withhold the requested information and has asked for a decision
from the attorney general about whether the information is within an exception to public disclosure; and

(2) a copy of the governmental body's written communication to the attorney general asking for the decision or, if the
governmental body's written communication to the attorney general discloses the requested information, a redacted copy of
that written communication.

(e) A governmental body that requests an attorney general decision under Subsection (a) must within a reasonable time but not
later than the 15th business day after the date of receiving the written request:

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
§ 552.301. Request for Attorney General Decision, TX GOVT § 552.301

(1) submit to the attorney general:

(A) written comments stating the reasons why the stated exceptions apply that would allow the information to be withheld;

(B) a copy of the written request for information;

(C) a signed statement as to the date on which the written request for information was received by the governmental body
or evidence sufficient to establish that date; and

(D) a copy of the specific information requested, or submit representative samples of the information if a voluminous
amount of information was requested; and

(2) label that copy of the specific information, or of the representative samples, to indicate which exceptions apply to which
parts of the copy.

(e-1) A governmental body that submits written comments to the attorney general under Subsection (e)(1)(A) shall send a copy
of those comments to the person who requested the information from the governmental body not later than the 15th business
day after the date of receiving the written request. If the written comments disclose or contain the substance of the information
requested, the copy of the comments provided to the person must be a redacted copy.

(f) A governmental body must release the requested information and is prohibited from asking for a decision from the attorney
general about whether information requested under this chapter is within an exception under Subchapter C 1 if:

(1) the governmental body has previously requested and received a determination from the attorney general concerning the
precise information at issue in a pending request; and

(2) the attorney general or a court determined that the information is public information under this chapter that is not excepted
by Subchapter C.

(g) A governmental body may ask for another decision from the attorney general concerning the precise information that was
at issue in a prior decision made by the attorney general under this subchapter if:

(1) a suit challenging the prior decision was timely filed against the attorney general in accordance with this chapter
concerning the precise information at issue;

(2) the attorney general determines that the requestor has voluntarily withdrawn the request for the information in writing
or has abandoned the request; and

(3) the parties agree to dismiss the lawsuit.

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2
§ 552.301. Request for Attorney General Decision, TX GOVT § 552.301

Credits
Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 268, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 1035, § 18, eff. Sept.
1, 1995; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1231, § 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1319, § 20, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts
2005, 79th Leg., ch. 329, § 10, eff. Sept. 1, 2005; Acts 2007, 80th Leg., ch. 474, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2007; Acts 2009, 81st Leg.,
ch. 1377, § 8, eff. Sept. 1, 2009; Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., ch. 1229 (S.B. 602), § 39, eff. Sept. 1, 2011; Acts 2019, 86th Leg., ch.
1340 (S.B. 944), § 7, eff. Sept. 1, 2019; Acts 2025, 89th Leg., ch. 452 (H.B. 4219), § 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2025.

Footnotes

1 V.T.C.A., Government Code § 552.101 et seq.

V. T. C. A., Government Code § 552.301, TX GOVT § 552.301
Current through the end of the 2025 Regular and Second Called Sessions of the 89th Legislature.

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3
§ 552.321. Suit for Writ of Mandamus, TX GOVT § 552.321

V.T.C.A., Government Code § 552.321

§ 552.321. Suit for Writ of Mandamus

Currentness

(a) A requestor or the attorney general may file suit for a writ of mandamus compelling a governmental body to make information
available for public inspection if the governmental body refuses to request an attorney general's decision as provided by
Subchapter G 1 or refuses to supply public information or information that the attorney general has determined is public
information that is not excepted from disclosure under Subchapter C. 2

(b) A suit filed by a requestor under this section must be filed in a district court for the county in which the main offices of the
governmental body are located. A suit filed by the attorney general under this section must be filed in a district court of Travis
County, except that a suit against a municipality with a population of 100,000 or less must be filed in a district court for the
county in which the main offices of the municipality are located.

(c) A requestor may file suit for a writ of mandamus compelling a governmental body or an entity to comply with the
requirements of Subchapter J.

Credits
Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 268, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 1035, § 24, eff. Sept. 1,
1995; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1319, § 27, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2019, 86th Leg., ch. 1216 (S.B. 943), § 8, eff. Jan. 1, 2020.

Footnotes

1 V.T.C.A., Government Code § 552.301 et seq.

2 V.T.C.A., Government Code § 552.101 et seq.

V. T. C. A., Government Code § 552.321, TX GOVT § 552.321
Current through the end of the 2025 Regular and Second Called Sessions of the 89th Legislature.

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
§ 552.3215. Declaratory Judgment or Injunctive Relief, TX GOVT § 552.3215

V.T.C.A., Government Code § 552.3215

§ 552.3215. Declaratory Judgment or Injunctive Relief

Currentness

(a) In this section:

(1) “Complainant” means a person who claims to be the victim of a violation of this chapter.

(2) “State agency” means a board, commission, department, office, or other agency that:

(A) is in the executive branch of state government;

(B) was created by the constitution or a statute of this state; and

(b) An action for a declaratory judgment or injunctive relief may be brought in accordance with this section against a
governmental body that violates this chapter.

(c) The district or county attorney for the county in which a governmental body other than a state agency is located or the
attorney general may bring the action in the name of the state only in a district court for that county. If the governmental body
extends into more than one county, the action may be brought only in the county in which the administrative offices of the
governmental body are located.

(d) If the governmental body is a state agency, the Travis County district attorney or the attorney general may bring the action
in the name of the state only in a district court of Travis County.

(e) A complainant may file a complaint alleging a violation of this chapter. The complaint must be filed with the district or
county attorney of the county in which the governmental body is located unless the governmental body is the district or county
attorney. If the governmental body extends into more than one county, the complaint must be filed with the district or county
attorney of the county in which the administrative offices of the governmental body are located. If the governmental body is

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
§ 552.3215. Declaratory Judgment or Injunctive Relief, TX GOVT § 552.3215

a state agency, the complaint may be filed with the Travis County district attorney. If the governmental body is the district or
county attorney, the complaint must be filed with the attorney general. To be valid, a complaint must:

(1) be in writing and signed by the complainant;

(2) state the name of the governmental body that allegedly committed the violation, as accurately as can be done by the
complainant;

(3) state the time and place of the alleged commission of the violation, as definitely as can be done by the complainant; and

(4) in general terms, describe the violation.

(f) A district or county attorney with whom the complaint is filed shall indicate on the face of the written complaint the date
the complaint is filed.

(g) Before the 31st day after the date a complaint is filed under Subsection (e), the district or county attorney shall:

(1) determine whether:

(A) the violation alleged in the complaint was committed; and

(B) an action will be brought against the governmental body under this section; and

(2) notify the complainant in writing of those determinations.

(h) Notwithstanding Subsection (g)(1), if the district or county attorney believes that that official has a conflict of interest that
would preclude that official from bringing an action under this section against the governmental body complained of, before
the 31st day after the date the complaint was filed the county or district attorney shall inform the complainant of that official's
belief and of the complainant's right to file the complaint with the attorney general. If the district or county attorney determines
not to bring an action under this section, the district or county attorney shall:

(1) include a statement of the basis for that determination; and

(2) return the complaint to the complainant.

(i) If the district or county attorney determines not to bring an action under this section, the complainant is entitled to file the
complaint with the attorney general before the 31st day after the date the complaint is returned to the complainant. A complainant
is entitled to file a complaint with the attorney general on or after the 90th day after the date the complainant files the complaint
with a district or county attorney if the district or county attorney has not brought an action under this section. On receipt of

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2
§ 552.3215. Declaratory Judgment or Injunctive Relief, TX GOVT § 552.3215

the written complaint, the attorney general shall comply with each requirement in Subsections (g) and (h) in the time required
by those subsections. If the attorney general decides to bring an action under this section against a governmental body located
only in one county in response to the complaint, the attorney general must comply with Subsection (c).

(j) An action may be brought under this section only if the official proposing to bring the action notifies the governmental body
in writing of the official's determination that the alleged violation was committed and the governmental body does not cure the
violation before the fourth day after the date the governmental body receives the notice.

(k) An action authorized by this section is in addition to any other civil, administrative, or criminal action provided by this
chapter or another law.

Credits
Added by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1319, § 28, eff. Sept. 1, 1999. Amended by Acts 2017, 85th Leg., ch. 894 (H.B. 3107),
§ 4, eff. Sept. 1, 2017.

V. T. C. A., Government Code § 552.3215, TX GOVT § 552.3215
Current through the end of the 2025 Regular and Second Called Sessions of the 89th Legislature.

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3
§ 552.324. Suit by Governmental Body, TX GOVT § 552.324

V.T.C.A., Government Code § 552.324

§ 552.324. Suit by Governmental Body

Currentness

(a) The only suit a governmental body may file seeking to withhold information from a requestor is a suit that:

(1) is filed in a Travis County district court against the attorney general in accordance with Section 552.325; and

(2) seeks declaratory relief from compliance with a decision by the attorney general issued under Subchapter G. 1

(b) The governmental body must bring the suit not later than the 30th calendar day after the date the governmental body
receives the decision of the attorney general determining that the requested information must be disclosed to the requestor. If the
governmental body does not bring suit within that period, the governmental body shall comply with the decision of the attorney
general. If a governmental body wishes to preserve an affirmative defense for its officer for public information as provided in
Section 552.353(b)(3), suit must be filed within the deadline provided in Section 552.353(b)(3).

Credits
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 1035, § 24, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 1319, § 30, eff. Sept.
1, 1999; Acts 2009, 81st Leg., ch. 1377, § 10, eff. Sept. 1, 2009.

Footnotes

1 V.T.C.A., Government Code § 552.301 et seq.

V. T. C. A., Government Code § 552.324, TX GOVT § 552.324
Current through the end of the 2025 Regular and Second Called Sessions of the 89th Legislature.

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
§ 552.325. Parties to Suit Seeking to Withhold Information, TX GOVT § 552.325

V.T.C.A., Government Code § 552.325

§ 552.325. Parties to Suit Seeking to Withhold Information

Currentness

(a) A governmental body, officer for public information, or other person or entity that files a suit seeking to withhold information
from a requestor may not file suit against the person requesting the information. The requestor is entitled to intervene in the suit.

(b) The governmental body, officer for public information, or other person or entity that files the suit shall demonstrate to the
court that the governmental body, officer for public information, or other person or entity made a timely good faith effort to
inform the requestor, by certified mail or by another written method of notice that requires the return of a receipt, of:

(1) the existence of the suit, including the subject matter and cause number of the suit and the court in which the suit is filed;

(2) the requestor's right to intervene in the suit or to choose to not participate in the suit;

(3) the fact that the suit is against the attorney general in Travis County district court; and

(4) the address and phone number of the office of the attorney general.

(c) If the attorney general enters into a proposed settlement that all or part of the information that is the subject of the suit should
be withheld, the attorney general shall notify the requestor of that decision and, if the requestor has not intervened in the suit,
of the requestor's right to intervene to contest the withholding. The attorney general shall notify the requestor:

(1) in the manner required by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, if the requestor has intervened in the suit; or

(2) by certified mail or by another written method of notice that requires the return of a receipt, if the requestor has not
intervened in the suit.

(d) The court shall allow the requestor a reasonable period to intervene after the attorney general attempts to give notice under
Subsection (c)(2).

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1
§ 552.325. Parties to Suit Seeking to Withhold Information, TX GOVT § 552.325

Credits
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 1035, § 24, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., ch. 1377, § 11, eff.
Sept. 1, 2009.

V. T. C. A., Government Code § 552.325, TX GOVT § 552.325
Current through the end of the 2025 Regular and Second Called Sessions of the 89th Legislature.

© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2
Appendix C
riled in The
Of Travis
Court
County, Texas

FEB 102025 SO.
D-1-GN-25-001039 At
CAUSE NO: Velva L Prica
Glerk

IN RE: § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
§ TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
455TH
STEPHEN PATRICK BLACK § JUDICIAL DISTRICT

RELATOR'S PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE § 552.321

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Stephen Patrick Black
Relator Pro Se
Texas Civil Commitment Center
2600 South Sunset Avenue
Littlefield, Texas 79339

Page 4
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

RELATOR
Stephen Patrick Black
Relator Pro Se
Texas Civil Commitment Center
2600 South Sunset Avenue
Littlefield, Texas 79339

REAL PARTY IN INTEREST
Nick Ybarra
Assistant Attorney General
Open Records Division
Texas Attorney General's Office
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711-2548

RESPONDENT
Hayley Glisson
General Counsel
Texas Civil Commitment Office
4616 West Howard Lane
Building 2, Suite 350
Austin, Texas 78728

Relator's Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Pursuant to Texas Government Code § 552.321

Page 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Identity of Parties and Counsel 2

Table of Contents 3

Index of Authorities 1-9

Statement of the Case vi

Statement of Jurisdiction vi

Issue Presented vi

ISSUE1: Did the Texas Civil Commitment Office and the Texas Attorney General
abuse their discretion by withholding public information, pursuant to Tex. Gov't. Code
§ 552.1345, that are Requestor's own records? 2-9

Statement of Facts 1

Argument & Authorities 2-9

Prayer for Relief 9

Verification 9

Appendix to the Exhibits 10

Relator's Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Pursuant to Texas Government Code § 552.321

Page 6
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
FEDERAL CASES
Kneeland v. National Collegiate Athletic Association,
650 F. Supp. 1076, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24 (5th Cir. 1986) 7-8

STATE CASES
Calvert v. Employees Retirement System of Texas,
648 S.W.2d 418 (Tex. App. Austin 1983, writ refidnre)
-
8
City of Austin v. Cahill,
88 S.W. 542 (Tex. 1905) 8
City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News,
22 S.W.3d 351, 357 (Tex. 2000) (plurality op.) 2
City of El Paso v. Abbott,
444 S.W.3d 315 (Tex. App.-Austin 2014, pet. denied) 4
City of Pasadena v. Smith,
292 S.W.3d 14 (Tex. 2009) 2
Billings v. Atkinson,
489 S.W.2d 858 (Tex.1973) 8
Davis v. Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety,
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 8766 (Tex. App.-Austin Aug. 2014, pet. denied) (mem. op ) 2
Doe v. Tarrant County Dist. Attorney's Office,
269 S.W.3d 147 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) 2
Hutchins v. Texas Rehabilitation Commission,
544 S.W.2d 802, (Tex. App. ~ Austin Dec. 8, 1976, no pet)
In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., LP.,
492 S.W.3d 300 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding) 2
Industrial Foundation of the South v. Texas Industrial Accident Board,
540 S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1976)
Jackson v. State Off. of Admin. Hearings,
351 S.W.3d 290 (Tex. 2011) 3
Morris v. Hoerster,
348 S.W.2d 642 (Tex. App. Austin 1961, writ ref. nr e )
-

7
Morris v. Hoerster,
377 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. App. Austin 1964, no writ)
-

Muir v. University of Tex. at Austin,
2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 4407 (Tex. App.-Austin June 22, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.) ...... 3
Palacios v. Corbett,
172 S.W. 777 (Tex. App. San Antonio 1915, writ ref.)
-
7

Relator's Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Pursuant to Texas Government Code § 552.321

Page 7
Paxton v. City of Dallas,
509 S.W.3d 247 (Tex. 2017) 2
San Antonio v. Alamo National Bank,
155 S.W. 620 (Tex. App. -San Antonio 1913, writ ref.)-

8
Starkey v. Stainton,
652 S.W.3d 80 (Tex. App. -Ft. Worth March 24, 2022, no pet.) 2
Texas Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Cox Tex. Newspapers, LP.,
343 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2011) 4
Walker v. Packer,
827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) 2
White v. Calaway,
282 S.W. 642 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1926, writ ref.)
-
8

STATE STATUTES
Texas Government Code
§ 552.001L (a) 3
§ 552.002(a) Vi, 6
§ 552.021 vi, 5
§ 552.101 v,3
§ 552.101-.162 3
§ 552.1345 v-v1, 1-2, 4-6
§ 552.221 (a) 3
§ 552.234 vi, 4
§ 552.301(a) 4
§ 552.321 vi, 3-4
§ 552.321(a) 3-4
§ 552.321(b) 4
Texas Health and Safety Code
§ 841.061 1

§ 841.083 1

OTHER
37 Tex.Jur.2d 768, Mandamus § 110 (1962) 8
66 Am.Jur.2d Records and Recording Laws, sec. 28 at 360 (1973) 7
Tex. Atty. Gen. ORD:
423 (1984) 8
400 (1983) 8
Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 6252-17a, § 3(a)(1) 6

Relator's Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Pursuant to Texas Government Code § 552.321

Page 8
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an original proceeding, pursuant to the Texas Government Code § 552.321.

Through a Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Stephen Patrick Black respectfully requests
this Court to provide relief from Texas Attorney General's opinion withholding from

disclosure, information he requested from the Texas Civil Commitment Office, pursuant
to the Tex. Gov. Code §§ 552.002(a), 552.021, and 552.234 of the Public Information Act.

JURISDICTION
Travis County District Court's have statutory jurisdiction to entertain appeals by
a Requestor of information withheld from disclosure, through a petition for writ of
mandamus, pursuant to the Tex. Gov't Code § 552.321. Additionally, original jurisdiction
is also conferred on this Court, pursuant to the Tex. Gov't Code 24.011.

ISSUES PRESENTED.
ISSUE 1: Did the Texas Civil Commitment Office and the Texas Attorney General
abuse their discretion by withholding public information, pursuant to Tex. Gov't. Code §
552.1345, that are Requestor's own records?

STATEMENT REGARDING EVIDENCE
In support of this request for mandamus relief, Relator relies upon the following

evidence, which is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. Said evidence,
attached heretofore is contained in the Appendix of Exhibits, which are being filed and
served on all parties together with this mandamus.

Relator's Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Pursuant to Texas Government Code § 552.321
vi

Page 9
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Stephen Patrick Black (Relator) was civilly committed on April 7, 2016, pursuant to
the Texas Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 841.061 in the 274th Judicial District Court of

Guadalupe County, Texas. Under HSC § 841.083, the Texas Civil Commitment Office
(Respondent) oversees Relator's treatment and supervision, at the Texas Civil
Commitment Center (TCCC), located in Littlefield, Texas.

On October 29, 2024, Relator filed a request for public information with the

Respondent. Exhibit A-Stephen Patrick Black's Request for PIA Information. The
information Relator sought was his own personal information held by the Respondent,
and developed during his treatment in the civil commitment program. On November 13,

2024, Respondent notified Relator of its intent to challenge his request to the Texas

Attorney General (Real Party in Interest "hereinafter" RPI), alleging the requested
information is to be withheld from disclosure, pursuant to Tex. Gov. Code § 552.1345. On
November 20, 2024, the Respondent requested RPI to provide a ruling on its challenge to
Relator's requested information. On November 21, 2024, the Respondent notified Relator
it filed its challenge with the RPI. Exhibit B-Texas Civil Commitment Office's Response
& Challenge.

On January 23, 2025, RPI sent notice to the Respondent, and Relator with its letter

ruling and opinion, withholding from disclosure the public information requested by
Relator, pursuant to Tex. Gov. Code § 552.1345. Exhibit C-Texas Attorney General's
Letter Ruling/ Opinion. This was in error. Relator now files this petition for writ of

mandamus, challenging Respondent's refusal to produce the requested public
information, and the RPI's letter ruling and opinion, withholding from disclosure
Relator's requested public information. In support hereof, Relator respectfully shows this
Court the following:

Relator's Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Pursuant to Texas Government Code § 552.321

Page 1 of 9

Page 10
ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES
ISSUE 1: Did the Texas Civil Commitment Office and the Texas Attorney General
abuse their discretion by withholding public information, pursuant to Tex. Gov't.
Code § 552.1345, that are Requestor's own records?

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
"Whether information that is requested under the PIA is excepted from disclosure
is essentially a matter of statutory construction. Starkey v. Stainton, 652 S.W.3d 80, 85-86
(Tex. App. ~-Ft. Worth March 24, 2022, no pet.); citing City of Garland v. Dallas Morning
News, 22 5.W.3d 351, 357 (Tex. 2000) (plurality op.); Doe v. Tarrant County Dist. Attorney's

Office, 269 5.W.3d 147, 152 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2008, no pet.); see Greater Hous. P'ship v.

Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51, 58 (Tex. 2015). Matters of statutory construction are questions of

law that courts review de novo. Paxton v. City of Dallas, 509 S.W.3d 247, 256 (Tex. 2017)

(construing PJA's "compelling reason" standard de novo), Doe, 269 S.W.3d at 152.

In construing the PIA and its exceptions, "our primary objective is to ascertain and

give effect to the [l]egislature's intent." Greater Hous. P'ship, 468 S.W.3d at 58. Courts
presume that the legislature intended for the statute to be constitutional, and further
presume that the statute is in fact constitutional and interpret it accordingly. See City of
Pasadena v. Smith, 292 S.W.3d 14, 19 & n.36 (Tex. 2009); Brooks v. Northglen Ass'n, 141

S.W.3d 158, 169-70 (Tex. 2004); Davis v. Tex. Dep't of Pub. Safety, No. 03-13-00199-CV, 2014
Tex. App. LEXIS 8766, 2014 WL 4058981, at *1 (Tex. App.-Austin Aug. 12, 2014, pet.

denied) (mem. op.). "[W]e give due consideration to AG decisions even though they are
not binding" because "the legislature has imposed on the AG the duty to provide written

opinions to governmental entities" on such issues. Doe, 269 S.W.3d at -152.

"Mandamusis an extraordinary remedy granted only whena relator can show that

(1) the trial court abused its discretion and (2) that no adequate appellate remedy exists."
In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., L.P., 492 S.W.3d 300, 303 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); Walker v.

Packer, 827 8.W.2d 833, 839-40-(Tex: 1992) (orig. proceeding).

Relator's Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Pursuant to Texas Government Code § 552.321

Page 2 of 9

Page 11
In this instant case, the Respondent and RPI are the entities that have abused their
discretion for withholding the requested public information from the Relator. Only one

statutory appellate remedy exists, and that is Tex. Gov't Code § 552.321. Relator must file
a writ of mandamus in the Travis County District Courts, as it is
statutorily mandated. Id
at 552.321(a).

II. APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Texas Legislature promulgated the PIA with the express purpose of providing
the public "complete information about the affairs of government and the official acts of

public officials and employees." Muir v. University of Tex. at Austin, No. 03-22-00196-CV,
2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 4407, at *5-6 (Tex. App.-Austin June 22, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op.)

(quoting Jackson v. State Off. of Admin. Hearings, 351 S.W.3d 290, 293 (Tex. 2011) (quoting
Tex. Gov't Code § 552.001(a)). "Under the PIA, upon receiving a request for public

information, a governmental body must 'promptly' produce public information for

inspection, duplication, or both." Id. at *6 (quoting Tex. Gov't Code § 552.221(a)). "This
means that a governmental body must produce public information 'as soon as possible

under the circumstances,' 'within a reasonable time, without delay." Id.

The PIA defines "public information broadly to include "information that is

written, produced, collected, assembled, or maintained under a law or ordinance or in
connection with the transaction of official business by a governmental body" or "by an
individual officer or employee of a governmental body in the officer's or employee's
official capacity and the information pertains to official business of the governmental

body." Tex. Gov't Code § 552.002(a).

The PIA excepts information from public disclosure if it is "considered to be
confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision." Muir, 2023
Tex. App. LEXIS 4407, at *6 (quoting Tex. Gov't Code § 552.101). "In turn, the PIA sets
forth numerous statutory exceptions to disclosure," id. (citing Tex. Gov't Code §§ 552.101-

.162), "embrac[ing] the understanding that the public's right to know is tempered by the

Relator's Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Pursuant to Texas Government Code § 552.321

Page 3 of 9

Page 12
individual and other interests at stake in disclosing that information," id. at *6-7 (citing
Texas Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Cox Tex. Newspapers, L.P., 343 S.W.3d 112, 114
(Tex. 2011)). A
governmental body wishing to withhold requested information under an exception
generally must request a determination from the attorney general confirming that the
exception applies. See id. at *7 (citing Tex. Gov't Code § 552.301(a)).

Central to Relator's request for mandamus relief, Section 552.321 of the PIA
"waives sovereign immunity for requestors seeking a writ of mandamus to compel a

governmental body to make certain information available for public inspection under
certain circumstances." City of El Paso v. Abbott, 444 S.W.3d 315, 322 (Tex. App.-Austin

2014, pet. denied); see Muir, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 4407, at *5-7 (describing PIA's waiver

of sovereign immunity). Subsection (a) of Section 552.321 provides:

A requestor may file suit for a writ of mandamus compelling a
governmental body to make information available for public inspection if
the governmental body refuses to request an attorney general's decision
as provided by Subchapter G or refuses to supply public information or
information that the attorney general has determined is public
information that is not excepted from disclosure under Subchapter C. Tex.
Gov't Code § 552.321(a). "A suit filed by a requestor under this section
must be filed in a district court for the county in which the main offices of
the governmental body are located." Id. § 552.321(b).

This Court has authority and jurisdiction through mandamus, pursuant to Tex.
Gov't Code § 552.321, to compel the Texas Civil Commitment Office (Respondent) a

governmental agency, to release the information requested by the Relator, pursuant to
Tex. Gov't Code § 552.234. On January 23, 2025, the RPI issued a letter ruling and opinion

informing the Respondent to withhold the information Relator requested, pursuant to
Tex. Gov't Code § 552.1345. Withholding the requested information pursuant to this
subsection of the PIA Act is in error, and inapplicable.

Relator's Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Pursuant to Texas Government Code § 552.321

Page 4 of 9

Page 13
Tex. Gov't Code § 552.1345 states:

(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), information obtained or
maintained by the Texas Civil Commitment Office is excepted from the
requirements of Section 552.021 if it is information about a person who is
civilly committed as a sexually violent predator under Chapter 841.
Health and Safety Code.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to statistical or other aggregated
information relating to persons civilly committed to one or more facilities
operated by or under a contract with the office.
(emphasis added)

The information he requested is not excepted from disclosure, as he is the

requestor of his own personal information. Section 552.1345, pertains to the general

public requesting information "about a person who is civilly committed." Section
552.1345 does not differentiate "who" may be requesting the public information, e.g. is it

someone from the general public, or is it the actual person requesting information about

himself. Section 552.1345, is specifically intended to protect Relator's information from

being obtained by the general public, and not intended to be withheld from disclosure, if
he is the one making the public information request. See Section 552.023.

Section 552.023, was promulgated to further broaden the rights of a requestor

obtaining public information. This Section provides a special right of access to the
requested confidential information, if itis specifically "related" to that "person," and they
are the actual person submitting the request. Section 552.023 states in part:

(a) A person or a person's authorized representative has a special right of
access, beyond the right of the general public, to information held by a
governmental body that relates to the person and that is protected from
public disclosure by laws intended to protect that person's privacy
interests.

(b) A governmental body may not deny access to information to the
person, or the person's representative, to whom the information relates on
the grounds that the information is considered confidential by privacy
principles under this chapter but may assert as grounds for denial of
access other provisions of this chapter or other Jaw that are not intended
to protect the person's privacy interests. (emphasis added).

Relator's Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Pursuant to Texas Government Code § 552.321

Page Sof9

Page 14
Relator contends, the information he requested relates directly to him, and is not

excepted from disclosure. See Exhibit C-Texas Attorney General's Letter Ruling/
Opinion. Relator requested Respondent to release information pertaining to his own
treatment records, and they denied the request, pursuant to Section 552.1345. See Exhibit

B-Texas Civil Commitment Office's Response & Challenge.

Relator urges this Court to narrowly tailor their review to the specific Section

552.1345, as no other exceptions can be further asserted by the Respondent. They have
waived their right to assert further exceptions, as this review is constrained only to the

exceptions raised in their request for review. by the attorney general. They cannot raise
any other exceptions for the first time on appeal, or in this case, request for mandamus.

Alternative Request for Relief
If this Court concedes with the Respondent and RPI, by finding Relator's public
information request for his own records are to be withheld, pursuant to Tex. Gov't Code

§ 552.1345, then he respectfully requests this Court to consider providing the following

alternative relief.

A case was decided in 1976, wherein the person requesting the release of personal
records from the Texas Rehabilitation Commission under the then The Open Records Act,
Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 6252-17a, § 3(a)(1) (1975), should be withheld. The requestor
filed for mandamus relief in Travis County, in which the trial court ruled the records
should be withheld. On appeal, the requestor contended the trial court erred in ruling the
information sought was confidential, and further contended that as a former patient, she
had a common law right to inspect her own records. The Third Court of Appeals held
that the requestor was not authorized to gain access to her records under the Open
Records Act, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 6252-17a (1975), but held that the requestor did
have a common law right to inspect her own records.

Relator's Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Pursuant to Texas Government Code § 552.321

Page 6 of 9

Page 15
Further holding, the appellate court-ruled that based on individual status, the

requestor's common law right to inspect her own records overcame the presumption of
confidentiality and the prohibition of record disclosure under the relevant portion of the
Texas Open Records Act. In the case of Hutchins v. Texas Rehabilitation Commission, 544
S.W.2d 802, 803-804 (Tex. App.- Austin Dec. 8, 1976, no pet), the Texas Supreme Court

held, [they] recognize in the Open Records Act a strong preference for disclosure over

confidentiality." Cf, Industrial Foundation of the South v. Texas Industrial Accident Board, 540
S.W.2d 668 (Tex. 1976). "Under the Mental Health Code (Article 5547-87 (1958), V.A.T.S.)
a mental patient's records are declared to be confidential. Yet the patient has a
right to
consent to disclosure of the records. It would make little sense to say that a person

receiving rehabilitation services may not inspect the person's own records although a
mental patient may disclose his records to whomever he desires." (emphasis added)

Hutchins, at 804.

The Third Court of Appeals had previously held that state hospital records,

though not available for inspection by the general public, are subject to inspection by a
former patient. (etnphasis added) Morris v. Hoerster, 377 S.W.2d 841 (Tex. App. -
Austin
1964, no writ); Morris v. Hoerster, 348 S.W.2d 642 (Tex. -

App. Austin 1961, writ ref. nt.e.).
Decisions in other cases have also upheld this right: Palacios v. Corbett, 172 S.W. 777

(Tex.-App. San Antonio 1915, writ ref.); see also 66 Am.Jur.2d Records and Recording
Laws, sec. 28 at 360 (1973).

Additionally, it has further been held in the case Kneeland v. National Collegiate
Athletic Association, 650 F. Supp. 1076, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24 (5t8 Cir. 1986), "This Court
is of the opinion that the deletion of personally identifiable information as previously
Ordered will adequately protect the privacy interests of the students identified in the

[public] information sought by Plaintiff[s]." This statement was made in regards to The
Texas Supreme Court addressing concepts concerning the request of confidential public
information and its release.

Relator's Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Pursuant to Texas Government Code § 552.321

Page 7 of 9

Page 16
In the case, Industrial Foundation of the South, at 682 (Tex.1976)
(citing Billings v.
Atkinson, 489 S.W.2d 858 (Tex.1973), the Supreme Court established a two-prong test to
determine whether otherwise public information could be deemed confidential under

state common law. First, the information must contain "highly intimate or
embarrassing
facts about a person's private affairs such that its publication would be
highly
objectionable to a person of ordinary sensibilities." Id. at 685. Second, the information
must not be of legitimate concern to the public. Id. Both requirements must be met before
the information will be protected. Id.; Tex. Atty. Gen. ORD-423 (1984); ORD-400 (1983);

see Calvert v. Employees Retirement System of Texas, 648 S.W.2d 418 (Tex. App.- Austin

1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

Relator contends, based on his common law right of inspection of his own records,
he is entitled to access his own records in the files of the Texas Civil Commitment Office

(Respondent). Additionally, as held in Kneeland, if any information is considered
confidential that " the deletion of personally identifiable information as will adequately...

protect the privacy interests," identified by the Respondent's and believes is concerning.
Kneeland, at 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44.

Relator contends he is entitled to such relief as will provide him access to his

records, in this case the relief sought through mandamus, and that his request is
contained in his general prayer for relief. City of Austin v. Cahill, 99 Tex. 172, 88 S.W. 542

(Tex. 1905); San Antonio v. Alamo National Bank, 155 S.W. 620 (Tex. App. San Antonio
1913, writ ref.); White v. Calaway, 282 S.W. 642 (Tex. App. -
Fort Worth 1926, writ ref.); 37
Tex.Jur.2d 768, Mandamus § 110 (1962).

Relator's Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Pursuant to Texas Government Code § 552.321

Page 8 of 9

Page 17
PRAYER
For these reasons, Relator respectfully prays this Court GRANTS his Writ of
Mandamus by ordering Respondent to release the information withheld from Relator
based on any legal theory of relief presented herein, or this Court deems appropriate.

Furthermore, that the information shall be released in a timely manner, consistent with
this Court's opinion. Plus, any and all relief Relator is entitled to in law or equity, special

or general, and this Court deems just.

Respectfully Submitted,

Stephen Patrick Black
Pro Se Litigant
Texas Civil Commitment Center
2600 South Sunset Avenue
Littlefield, Texas 79339

VERIFICATION
I, Stephen Patrick Black, do swear under penalty of perjury the foregoing

instrument is true and correct, is based on personal knowledge, or information and belief.
I further certify and conclude, after careful review the petition, that every factual

statement contained therein is supported by competent evidence, including, but not
limited to the appendix/record.

Executed on this 5th day of February, 2025.

Stephen Patrick Black
Pro Se Litigant
Texas Civil Commitment Center
2600 South Sunset Avenue
Littlefield, Texas 79339
Relator's Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Pursuant to Texas Government Code § 552.321

Page 9 of 9

Page 18
6/3/2025 8:32 AM
Velva L. Price
District Clerk
Travis County
CAUSE NO. D-1-GN-25-001039 D-1-GN-25-001039
Susan Schmidt

IN RE § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
§
§
§ TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
§
§
STEPHEN PATRICK BLACK § 455TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

RESPONDENT’S AMENDED PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION AND ANSWER

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT:

Respondent Hayley Glisson, Staff Attorney for the Texas Civil Commitment

Office, (Respondent), by and through her undersigned counsel, submits this Amended

Plea to the Jurisdiction and Answer. In support, the Respondent would show the

Court as follows:

PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION

“A plea to the jurisdiction is a dilatory plea that seeks dismissal of a case for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” Harris Cty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 638 (Tex.

2004) (citing Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 554 (Tex. 2000)). At the

earliest opportunity, the court must determine whether it has jurisdiction under the

constitution or by statute to allow litigation to proceed. See Tex. Dep’t of Parks &

Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2004). Courts focus first on the

plaintiff’s petition to “determine whether the facts pleaded affirmatively demonstrate

that jurisdiction exists.” Wise Reg’l Health Sys. v. Brittain, 268 S.W.3d 799, 804 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.). Courts “construe the pleadings liberally in favor of

the plaintiff.” Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226 (citing Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control

Page 56
Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993)). “If the pleadings affirmatively negate the

existence of jurisdiction, then a plea to the jurisdiction may be granted without

allowing the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend.” Id. at 227. If the pleadings do not

affirmatively demonstrate the trial court’s jurisdiction but do not affirmatively

demonstrate incurable defects in jurisdiction, the issue is one of pleading sufficiency

and the plaintiff should be allowed to amend. Id. at 226–27. If a plea to the

jurisdiction challenges the existence of jurisdictional facts, the trial court may

consider the evidence and must do so when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional

issues raised. See Id. at 227; accord Bland, 34 S.W.3d at 555.

Black alleges that Respondent abused her discretion by declining to disclose

certain exempted public information from disclosure. Pl. Mandamus Pet. at 3.

Specifically, Black does not allege any improper action by Respondent but rather

complains about the Attorney General’s opinion regarding the disclosure. Pl.

Mandamus Pet. at 4. However, Black has failed to allege an ultra vires act against

Respondent for failing to act on behalf of the state or without legal authority.

An ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity exists when a plaintiff seeks

declaratory relief against a state official who fails to comply with statutory or

constitutional provisions. City of El Paso v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 372 (Tex. 2009).

This exception exists because a state agency or official acting without legal or

statutory authority is not acting on behalf of the state. Brennan v. City of Willow

Park, 376 S.W.3d 910, 923 (Tex. App.—Ft. Worth 2012, pet. denied). In that regard,

governmental entities themselves are not proper parties to an ultra vires suit. Hall

RESPONDENT’S AMENDED PTJ & ANSWER
Cause No. D-1-GN-25-001039; In Re Stephen Patrick Black Page 2 of 6

Page 57
v. McRaven, 508 S.W.3d 232, 238 (Tex. 2017). Instead, a declaratory judgment action

must be brought against the state actor in its official capacity. Brennan, 376 S.W.3d

at 923. This is because, even though such suits are for all practical purposes, a suit

against the State, they “do not attempt to exert control over the state─they attempt

to reassert the control of the state” over its agents. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 372.

Thus, an ultra vires action requires a plaintiff to “allege, and ultimately prove,

that the officer acted without legal authority or failed to perform a purely ministerial

act.” Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d at 372. If the plaintiff has not actually alleged such an

action, the claims remain barred by sovereign immunity from suit. Andrade v.

NAACP of Austin, 345 S.W.3d 1, 11 (Tex. 2011); Hall, 508 S.W.3d at 240–41 (holding

that the official-capacity defendant acted within his legal authority and was therefore

still entitled to sovereign immunity). Black’s ultra vires claim remains barred by

sovereign immunity because Black has failed to allege that Respondent acted without

legal authority. Black complaints solely rely on the Attorney General's Opinion

exempting the requested information from public disclosure.

Further, Texas Government Code section 552.321 establishes clear guidelines

for a mandamus suit under this section. Mandamus suits may be brought only if the

governmental body refuses to request an attorney general's decision as provided by

Subchapter G or refuses to supply public information or information that the attorney

general has determined is public information that is not excepted from disclosure

under Subchapter C. Id. Respondent requested an Attorney General Opinion. Pl.

Mandamus Pet. Ex. B. The Attorney General's Opinion considered the information

RESPONDENT’S AMENDED PTJ & ANSWER
Cause No. D-1-GN-25-001039; In Re Stephen Patrick Black Page 3 of 6

Page 58
excepted from disclosure. Pl. Mandamus Pet. Ex. C. Respondent followed those

guidelines when refusing to release the requested information.

Because Respondent carried out her ministerial duties by requesting an

Attorney General opinion and did not exceed her statutory authority, there is no ultra

vires exception to sovereign immunity, and Black’s claim must be dismissed for lack

of subject matter jurisdiction.

GENERAL DENIAL

Pursuant to Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the Attorney

General enters a general denial to all of Plaintiff’s allegations.

PRAYER

Respondent Hayley Glisson, Staff Attorney for the Texas Civil Commitment

Office, respectfully asks the Court, upon final hearing of this lawsuit, to dismiss the

case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and orders that Plaintiff take nothing by

reason of its suit and that all costs of litigation, including court costs and attorney

fees, be adjudged against Plaintiff. Respondent further prays for such other and

further relief, both general and special, at law and in equity, to which he may be

justly entitled.

RESPONDENT’S AMENDED PTJ & ANSWER
Cause No. D-1-GN-25-001039; In Re Stephen Patrick Black Page 4 of 6

Page 59
Respectfully submitted,

KEN PAXTON
Attorney General of Texas

BRENT WEBSTER
First Assistant Attorney General

RALPH MOLINA
Deputy First Assistant Attorney General

AUSTIN KINGHORN
Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation

ERNEST C. GARCIA
Chief, Administrative Law Division

/s/Maya Bailey
MAYA BAILEY
Texas State Bar No. 24132648
Assistant Attorney General
Administrative Law Division
OFFICE OF THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL
808 Travis Street, Suite 1520
Houston, Texas 77002
(713) 225-8907 – Telephone
maya.bailey@oag.texas.gov

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT, HAYLEY
GLISSON, STAFF ATTORNEY FOR THE TEXAS
CIVIL COMMITMENT OFFICE

RESPONDENT’S AMENDED PTJ & ANSWER
Cause No. D-1-GN-25-001039; In Re Stephen Patrick Black Page 5 of 6

Page 60
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Respondent’s Amended Plea to
the Jurisdiction and Answer has been served on June 3, 2025, on the following
attorneys-in-charge, by regular mail:

Stephen Patrick Black
Texas Civil Commitment Center
2600 South Sunset Avenue
Littlefield, Texas 79339

PRO SE

/s/ Maya Bailey
MAYA BAILEY
Assistant Attorney General

RESPONDENT’S AMENDED PTJ & ANSWER
Cause No. D-1-GN-25-001039; In Re Stephen Patrick Black Page 6 of 6

Page 61
06/17/2025 04:22:04 PM
Velva L. Price
District Clerk
Travis County
D-1-GN-25-001039

Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 75
Page 76
Page 77
Page 78
Page 79
Page 80
Page 81
4

1 THE COURT: This is Case Number

2 GN-25-001039, Stephen Patrick Black versus OAG. We're

3 here on an open records issue, I think.

4 I don't know -- who set this? Did you,

5 Mr. Black? Who set this hearing?

6 MR. GREY: My office set this.

7 THE COURT: Oh, you did. All right. Let

8 me have announcements first by the OAG and then

9 Mr. Black.

10 Go ahead.

11 MR. GREY: John Grey, Assistant Attorney

12 General, for Respondent Hayley Glisson, who is at the

13 table with me, staff attorney for the Texas Civil

14 Commitment Office.

15 THE COURT: Oh, hello. All right. Very

16 good.

17 And, Mr. Black, are you self-represented,

18 sir?

19 MR. BLACK: Yes. Good afternoon, Your

20 Honor. I'm self-representing pro se. So...

21 THE COURT: All right. That's good to

22 know. All right. Well, the OAG set this. So let's let

23 them get the start.

24 What's going on here today?

25 MR. GREY: Yes, Your Honor. It's a plea to
5

1 the jurisdiction. This case arises out of -- Mr. Black

2 submitted a PIA request to the civil commitment office.

3 Ms. Glisson requested a letter ruling from the OAG on

4 whether they needed to release the documents requested.

5 The OAG produced a letter saying that they were excluded

6 from production, and that's when Mr. Black filed a

7 petition for mandamus against Ms. Glisson.

8 I would like to point out a couple things

9 regarding that mandamus. There's only two instances

10 that the PIA allows a mandamus to be filed. The first

11 is when the governmental entity does not request a

12 letter ruling from the OAG, which Ms. Glisson did. It's

13 Exhibit 3 in his petition.

14 The other instance is when the OAG says

15 release the documents and they refuse. Well, that

16 didn't happen either. Those are the only instances in

17 which a mandamus is allowed. This is not the proper

18 vehicle.

19 I would also like to point out there's --

20 in the PIA, there's a very specific provision regarding

21 TCCO, and in that provision --

22 THE COURT: What's TCCO?

23 MR. GREY: Texas Civil Commitment Office.

24 THE COURT: All right.

25 MR. GREY: And it's -- I'm just going to
6

1 read it to you real quick.

2 "Information obtained or maintained by the

3 Texas Civil Commitment Office is excepted from

4 production under the PIA if it is information about a

5 person who is civilly committed as a sexually violent

6 predator under Chapter 841 of the Health and Safety

7 Code."

8 And Plaintiff Black has been civilly

9 committed as a sexually violent predator under

10 Chapter 841 of the Health and Safety Code.

11 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Very good.

12 MR. GREY: I have further arguments, but if

13 you want to let him go, that's fine as well.

14 THE COURT: Yeah, let me hear from you,

15 Mr. Black. What's going on?

16 MR. BLACK: Yes, Your Honor. I've kind of

17 reviewed their plea to the jurisdiction that they filed

18 with the Court.

19 THE COURT: Yeah.

20 MR. BLACK: And the original plea that they

21 filed did not contain the argument that they're posing.

22 The argument that they're posing is that Ms. Glisson has

23 got ultra vires sovereign immunity protection, and that

24 was not included in their first plea to the

25 jurisdiction, then they amended their plea to the
7

1 jurisdiction with that argument.

2 But the -- Government Code 552.321 is very

3 specific as -- I guess that's what Attorney Mr. Grey had

4 spoke about, and basically it lines out that -- let me

5 go to my opposition motion here, and I'll kind of read

6 it to you. I have it quoted.

7 It says a requestor may file suit for writ

8 of mandamus compelling a governmental body to make

9 information available for public inspection if the

10 governmental body refuses to request an attorney

11 general's decision as provided by Subchapter G or

12 refuses to supply the public information. And that's

13 what I filed my mandamus on.

14 And my mandamus is pretty specific that

15 both the respondent, which is Ms. Glisson, and the

16 attorney general, by his decision to inform Ms. Glisson

17 to withhold it, the respondent -- so I'm challenging the

18 fact that that specific section to Government Code 552

19 which he just stated, which is 1345, and it states, as

20 he said, the Texas Civil Commitment Office is excepted

21 from the requirements of Section 552.021 if it's

22 information about a person who is civilly committed.

23 So, therefore, I'm asking for my own records.

24 And I have -- if you have my opposition

25 motion in front of you, and my mandamus, I do have case
8

1 law that's very specific that I have a right to

2 challenge through mandamus the denial or the withholding

3 of the information of both parties -- well, actually,

4 just Ms. Glisson, and the AG's decision to withhold it.

5 One of the cases that I have that's

6 relevant to this case is the City of Killeen versus City

7 of Houston, and then the other one is Harris County

8 Appraisal District versus Integrity Title Company. And

9 in both of those cases, it speaks about filing a

10 mandamus and that a requestor has the right to challenge

11 the attorney general's withholding of the information

12 because it's a check on the governmental body, which is

13 TCCO; and, therefore, if I don't have a way of reviewing

14 those denials, that would make their decisions

15 unreviewable. And in the City of Killeen, the case --

16 the case authority on that basically is saying that

17 their decisions have to be reviewable by a court.

18 And then on the City of Harris County [sic]

19 case, it basically says that the trial court, which is

20 your court, Your Honor, has jurisdiction to determine

21 whether requested information should have been

22 requested -- should have been disclosed.

23 And so this is why I have filed the

24 mandamus in your court, but I really thought we were

25 here on the plea to the jurisdiction, just to determine
9

1 if you have jurisdiction or not.

2 THE COURT: All right. Thank you,

3 Mr. Black. I do appreciate it.

4 Let me hear from the attorney general's

5 office again.

6 MR. GREY: Well, as he stated, in that

7 mandamus section, the governmental entity did ask for a

8 letter ruling. They received one, and they complied

9 with it when they were told they did not have to turn

10 over documents.

11 Ms. Glisson is entitled to sovereign

12 immunity, and he has pointed to no -- no statute that

13 waives that sovereign immunity whatsoever.

14 And this is not the proper channel to

15 challenge a letter ruling from the attorney general. A

16 mandamus is not the way to go, given the facts and the

17 law of this case. What this gentleman should have done

18 was filed a lawsuit against the attorney general, and

19 then -- I've done many of these cases -- and then we go

20 to trial, or we go to a hearing, and we -- and the judge

21 determines whether they want an in-camera inspection of

22 certain documents that the governmental entity is

23 requesting to be withheld.

24 Generally, what I see is the governmental

25 entity sues the attorney general on their behalf because
10

1 the attorney general says to turn over certain

2 information. We don't have that here. What we have is

3 the attorney general letter ruling saying "you don't

4 have to turn over anything."

5 THE COURT: Okay. Anything else?

6 MR. GREY: I think that pretty much says

7 it. I mean, we're -- Ms. Glisson is immune from suit as

8 a state official, as a -- working for a state agency,

9 the same as a state agency has, and he can point to no

10 case law that says she is not entitled to sovereign

11 immunity, and we're asking the Court to grant our plea

12 to the jurisdiction on these bases.

13 THE COURT: Mr. Black, anything else?

14 MR. BLACK: Yes, Your Honor. Let me find

15 it here.

16 THE COURT: Okay.

17 MR. BLACK: So basically what they're

18 claiming is that -- they're not speaking about their

19 argument that they posed in their plea to the

20 jurisdiction, which is an ultra vires claim that they're

21 trying to recast my argument for, which is not.

22 And the Government Code 552.321 is very

23 specific saying that any time that a requestor requests

24 public information and a governmental agency such as

25 TCCO denies that and then they go to the attorney
11

1 general looking for a ruling to determine if that was

2 proper, the requestor has a right in which to challenge

3 both of their decisions.

4 So it says here in the case that I have

5 here, "The Texas Public Information Act provides that a

6 requestor may file suit for writ of mandamus compelling

7 a governmental body to make the information available,

8 thus clearly waiving immunity from these particular

9 suits."

10 And that's Texas Government

11 Code 552.321(a).

12 The City of Houston versus Houston

13 Municipal Employee Pension System, which is in my --

14 Page 5 of my opposition motion, there's a case that --

15 it quotes, "The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction,

16 arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction over the

17 suit...The district court overruled that plea, granting

18 summary judgment for Kallinen, and ordered disclosure of

19 many of the withheld documents."

20 And then there's a further case from Ken

21 Paxton versus Abbott from 2024, and it says, "In a case

22 brought under the Texas Public Information Act,

23 Government Code 22 point" -- and their specific

24 situation said it did not deprive the trial court of

25 jurisdiction in which to issue writ of mandamus against
12

1 the appellants, because pursuant to Government

2 Code 552.321, the Legislature amended the act to

3 expressly delegate jurisdiction to district courts,

4 which is yours, Your Honor, over mandamus actions for

5 violations of the act and that appellees in that case

6 demonstrated the trial court's jurisdiction over the

7 appellants; and, therefore, the factual allegations that

8 they had supplied to the court proved that it had

9 jurisdiction to hear the argument.

10 So basically, to sum this up, I filed

11 mandamus in your court pursuant to Texas Government

12 Code 552.321 to challenge the denial of disclosing

13 public information that I requested that is specifically

14 my own information. And if you look in my mandamus, I

15 have case law in there that supports that contention,

16 Your Honor.

17 THE COURT: Okay.

18 MR. BLACK: And I have a right to my own

19 information. Thank you.

20 THE COURT: All right. Thank you very

21 much.

22 All right. Mr. Black, colleagues from the

23 OAG's office, the attorney general's plea to the

24 jurisdiction is granted.

25 Do you have an order?
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email 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 still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Ethan Nutter on behalf of Ethan Nutter
Bar No. 24104988
enutter@velaw.com
Envelope ID: 109663213
Filing Code Description: Brief Requesting Oral Argument
Filing Description: Brief Requesting Oral Argument
Status as of 1/5/2026 3:08 PM CST

Case Contacts

Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status

Ethan J.Nutter enutter@velaw.com 1/5/2026 3:00:43 PM SENT

John M.Grey john.grey@oag.texas.gov 1/5/2026 3:00:43 PM SENT

Stephen Patrick Black v. Hayley Glisson and the Texas Civil Commitment Office

Full text

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude