TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-14-00013-CV
In re Raul Adam Trevino
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Raul Adam Trevino, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
(TDCJ), filed a pro se motion in this Court seeking an “emergency injunction against unrelated
parties in interest.” Looking to the substance of Trevino’s motion, rather than its title or form, we
construe his motion as a petition for writ of mandamus. 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 his
petition, Trevino asks us to compel certain prison officials—namely “the Daniel Unit Law Library
Supervisor J. Floyd and the overall TDCJ agency administration”—to take, or refrain from taking,
particular actions.
This Court does not have mandamus jurisdiction over the TDCJ or personnel thereof.
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. Staff members of the Daniel Unit and unnamed prison
employees and officials are not parties against whom we have the power to issue a writ of
mandamus. Nor has Trevino demonstrated that the exercise of our writ power is necessary to enforce
our jurisdiction. We have no jurisdiction to grant Trevino the relief he seeks.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
____________________________________________
J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Rose
Filed: January 22, 2014
2