In re Kriss Camp Appeal from ... of ... County (memorandum opinion)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-17-00399-CV In re Kriss Camp ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Kriss Camp, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, has filed a document entitled Request for Temporary Restraining Order, which we have construed as a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Surgitek, Bristol-Myers Corp. v. Abel, 997 S.W.2d 598, 601 (Tex. 1999) (courts look to substance of pleading rather than its caption or form to determine its nature); see also Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. In connection with the processing of his prison mail, Camp asks us to issue a writ of mandamus directed to various prison officials of the Neal Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and “court officials” of Tom Green County and Potter County. By statute, this Court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus against “a judge of a district or county court in the court of appeals district” and other writs as necessary to enforce our appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221. This Court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over the Texas Department of Criminal Justice or personnel thereof. Nor do we have jurisdiction over any court officials of Potter County as Potter County lies outside our appellate district. See id. § 22.201(d). As to the Tom Green County court officials, Camp has failed to demonstrate that the exercise of our writ power as he requests—in connection with mail processing in the Neal Unit in Potter County—is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. These prison officials and county court officials are not parties against whom we may issue a writ of mandamus. We have no jurisdiction to grant Camp the relief he seeks. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. __________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Justice Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Goodwin Filed: June 22, 2017 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.