James Brickley v. Nicholas Watson

NO. 15-25-00118-CV IN THE FILED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS AUG 25 2025 CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS at AUSTIN JAMES BRICKLEY, Appellant, Vv.

NICHOLAS WALTON, Appellee.

Appealed from the 440th Court of Coryell County, Texas APPELLANT'S BRIEF JAMES BRICKLEY Appellant pro se 3201 FM 929 Gatesville, Texas 76597 JAMES BRICKLEY PRO SE APPELLANT REQUESTS ORAL ARGUMENT NO. 15-25-00118-CV JAMES BRICKLEY, Appellant, V. NICHOLAS WALTON, Appellee, IDENTITY OF PARTIES & COUNSEL Appellant, James Brickley, pro se, 3201 FM 929, Gatesville, Texas 76597.

Appellee, Nicholas Walton, represented ny Jacob I. Pons, Asst.

Attorney General, Texas State Bar No. 24139435, Office of the Attorney General, P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station, Austin, Texas 78711. phone: (512)-463-2080 fax: (512)-370-9814, email: jacob.po [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS page IDENTITY OF PARTIES........00. beth ee ence seen eee nee beeen e wees 1 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES........ see eee ease enes See ese eees seen i111 STATEMENT OF THE CASE. ccc eeeecaceues sate n ern eens serene eee seeedv STATEMENT ON ORAL ARGUMENT.......0.. bese eee ena eee stb eeeeae 8 Vv ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW. .....000ceeeees ve bee tes aee thee e ee eee Vv STATEMENT OF FACTS. .cacceuececueee beeen ere e eee tee ee eee ve weee 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT.......000c0eeeeee see eee ene eee seen e eens 1 ARGUMENT. 2.2.4.6. vee eee eens See e eee nee e nae Peewee nee aae see ee eee 4, Issue t: The trial court erred in dismissing the case with prejudice..... e 8 #@ @ © PF 8 8 oF se ' + + ee ee ee ee a es e+ @ ee ee eee ee weed Issue 2: The trial court erred in dismissing the case for jurisdiction.,......... sheen eee nenneee Seen e ene ans wee 6 Issue 3; The trial. court erred by not first taking up the matter of plaintiff's request for defense attorney to show authority to act....icacccccecacs cece e eee eee 7 CONCLUSION. coca eee eee peeve eee ena Cee e eet cee seen eee 29 PRAYER. wee enna Senet e enone Liceaeees see eeee bbe eee eeee veee ee lO CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE... ccc cee ee eaes eee eee eee e nee been eae es 10 APPENDIX. ccc eae e eee eee eee eee ewes tee teen eee nee thee eens eee eed ii INDEX OF AUTHORITIES age CASES American Motorists Ins. v. Fodge, 63 S.1.3d 801,805 (Tex. 2006)..4 Black v. Jackson, 82 S.W.3d 44,56 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2002, no pet. ef ee es ee ee ee eae ee eee ee OO eC oo @ @ ee tease ees dD City of Carrollton v. Harlan, 180 S.W.3d 894,898 (Tex.App.- Dallas 2005, pet. denied)... ccc cece cece eee eenes bebe ee eee 5 City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 S.W.2d 650,653 (Tex. 1994)....9 Harris Cty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635,639 (Tex. 2004).......... wd Jansen v. Fitzpatrick, 14 S.W,3d 426,431 (Tex.App.-Houston {14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.)...cceceaee Lee eee cere wena weed J&J Sports Prods. v. JWJ Mgmt., Inc., 324 S.W.3d 823 (Tex.App.- Fort Woth 2010, no pet.).......0. Lecce ences eeeeas ceeiueeel Mazaheri v. Rosenblatt Law Firm, No.04-24-00453-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 4380 (Tex.App.- San Antonio June25,2025, no Pet He )iscccscvveccvece Cem e eee eee en eees eee eee eens 7 Sanchez v. Boone, 579 S.W.3d 526, 2019 Tex.App. LEXIS 4001 (Tex. App.-Houston 14th Dist. Mayl6,2019.no pet. )isssesseease seed State v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 639,642 (Tex. 2007)...eeeeceees eb Texas A&M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835,839-40 (Tex, 2007) scccecaccncceseureres esatetvecterens neue beeen nee 558 Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 $.W.3d 217, (Tex. 2004)...ccccceaee cece ee eee ease eeennes vee e ewes 6 Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334,338 (Tex. 2006)..... beeen eeee 4 Webster v. Comm'n for Law Discipline, 704 SW.3d 478, 2024 Tex. LEXES 1175 (Tex. 2024) cic ccscccvcnscncencevcneens eee ee ees 8 STATUTES Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §134.005......... sees 2 Texas Government Code §402.021....... Cece ee eee eee teens 1 8B Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 12..c.cccvccccceceeceaae pee eeeees 8 Tex.Civ.Prac.& Rem.Code S10L.003..... ccc eee ee eee eee cece ntees .9 Tex.Civ.Prac.& Rem. Code $134,001. ci cceseeeenee ee eaees bocce cere eed Tex.Civ.Prac.& Rem.Code §134.002........4, Leer eee eee ee eeeee 7 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CONT...

Tex.Civ.Prac.& Rem.Code §41,.003.... ee eb be ee ee Tex,Civ.Prac.& Rem.Code §§134,001-005.......

42 USCS $1983. .... ccc eee eee rae ifja see eee eee se eenecneed foe oe ee eee ee he seeeed sp eee eee eee ek he + save neceesaed STATEMENT OF THE CASE Nature of the Case, Appellant sued appellee for the theft of his legal materials and violation to his civil rights in his indi- vidual capacity.(C.R. at 6-18) Course of Proceedings. After service on the defendant of citat« ion (C.R. at 79 &80), Asst. Attorney Genderal, Jacob'I. Pons filed a plea to jurisdiction (C.R. at 88-92), Brickley filed a motion * for Mr. Pons to show authority to act (C.R. at 114-18). The court ordered Dismissal with prejudice for jurisdiction on June 11,2025 (C.R. at 122){(APP. TAB 1), unbeknownst to the plaintiff. Plains tiff filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, CG.R. pp. 140-41). The trial court has refused to File’such Finds ings of fact and conclusions of law, despite notice.

Trial Court Disposition. The trial court rendered judgment on the plea to jurisdiction on June 11,2025. (C.R. at 122). iv STATEMENT ON ORAL ARGUMENT The Court should grant oral argument for the following reasons: Oral argument would give the Court a more complete understanding of the facts of the case presented on appeal without the risk of a complaint of appellee's affiliates withholding documents, answers, replys or motions as in Brickley v. Wagner, Cause number 15~-24-00- 067-CV; and Brickley v. Mitchell, Cause number 15-25-00063-CV. See Tex. R.App.P. 39.1(c).

ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Issue 1: The trial court erred in dismissing the case with prejudice, “Issue 2: The trial court erred in dismissing the case for jurisdiction.

Issue 3: The court erred by not first taking up the matter of plaintiff's request for defendant's attorney to show authority to act.

Vv STATEMENT OF FACTS Appellant, James Brickley, filed a suit against appellee, Nichoas Walton for theft of Brickley's legal mail and as a result of the theft violation of Brickley's inmate civil rights by preventing him from effectively participating in a legal process, by way of denying him access to his legal work.in a seperate case, The theft occured on June 14,2023, during a bi-annual shakedown, where officers, led by Property Officer Nicholas Walton, took legal work belonging to Brickley in violation of TDCJ policy;: and refused to provide confiscation paperwork,’in violation of the same policy; after requesting the names of other officers involved who conducted the shake down and reasons for the confisc- ation of legal work, Walton provided Brickley with no answers, in violation of TDCJ policy. Brickley filed a timely grievance and exhausted all administrative remedies, and filed a timely petition against Officer Nicholas Walton in his individual capacity.(C.R. pp 12-17 and 6-18).

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Brickley's first argument challenges the lower court's decision to dismiss the case with prejudice. The trial court first erred in dismissing the case as shown below, however, even in dismissing the case the court was without authority to do so with prejudice; where dismissal with prejudice would require either"a final deter- mination on the merits, or an opportunity to amend the petition ~ to add facts to overcome a claim of immunity. Neither of which happened.

Appellee's attorney argued that Brickley was not entitled to leave to amend because he belived there were no additional facts which could cure a jurisdictional defect by changing a »previouslypled claim for relief. €CwRvsat 89). However, Brickley would not need to do so at all because he claim relief under the Texas Civil Praétice and Remedies Code § 134.005, also known as the Texas Theft Liability Act.(C.R. at 9). And for violations of his civil rights, he requested relief under the TCPRC as well.(Id.). Brickley also stated that all conditions precedent had: been met prior to filing the suit.(C.R. at 10). When providing facts of the case, there need no other facts unless the court determines new facts need to be presented, and there need none to pursue a suit under the TTLA. Where the TTLA requires all elements of the theft to be proven as per the Texas Penal Code. (C.R. at 8-9)(demonstrating the elements of theft have been met). If the petition were libera- lly construed in the plaintiff's favor, the lower court abused discretion in dismissing the case, and without leave to amend, or determination that the amendment of facts would not cure a supposed defect that bars suit, the trial court erred in dismissing the suit with prejudice.

Second, the lower court abused discretion when dismissing the case for jurisdiction when there were facts in the petition which geanted-the-court jurisdiction over the cse, (C.R. at 120).

In bringing a suit for a'civil theft, pursuant<to sthé TTLA,-all elements of the Texas Penal Code theft statute must be met in order to provide the petitioner relief.., See Tex,.Civ.Prac. & Rem.

Code §§ 134.001-005. In Brickley's petition, he stated facts which satisfied the elements of the penal code's theft statute.(C.R. at -8). This gave defendant fair notice of the allegations against him, allowing him to provide a defense. Brickley then claimed rel- ief under the TTLA or Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem Code (C.R. at 9), which a reasonable person would construe as an attempt to bring a suit under the TTLA rather that as a criminal action under the Texas Penal Gode, which does not provide a party compensatory damages.

Similarly,, the claim of violation to Brickley's inmate civil rig- hts could not be construed as a claim under the Texas Penal Code because of Brickley's claim of exemplary damages under Téx.Civ.Prac. & Rem,Code §41.003.(C.R. at9), Furthermore, a petitioner is notiteqditedte -provideca legal th- eory in the petition to meet the Fair Pleadings Act. However, he is required to provide facts which would put the defendant on notice of the facts to allow them to create a valid defense. Peti- tioner is also required to provide an amount for recovery of dama- ges to establish jurisdiction of the court, which Brickley has done.(C.R. at 6-11).

And where the court determined that the Texas penal Code does not create a private cause of action. It is correct, however, the Texas penal Code does not preclude a private cause of action either.

Just because an action is a criminal offense, the courts are given jurisdiction under other statutes such as Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code §134.001, or 42 U.S.C.S. §1983, to adjudicate a suit in a civil capacity. And if the facts were ambiguous, the court should have aliowed an amendment to the pleadings rather than dismissal.

Finally, the court erred by not first addressing Brickley's motion requesting defendant's attorney, Jacob I. Pons, to show authority to act, pursuant to Rule 12 of the Texas Civil Rules of Court. Had the court required attorney to show authority to act, none of his pleadings, including his plea to jurisdiction would survive. Allowing the unauthorized representation for the defendant and refusing appointment of counsel for plaintiff after a request to do so, amounts to an equal protection violation under the 14th Amendment, where the law.* precludes defense attorney to act and gives the court discretion to appoint counsel in this particular scenario, to the plaintiff. Which in hindsight, would have preven- ted the problems before this Court today. Therefore, the court erred by not first taking up the issue of plaintiff's request for defendant's attorney to show authority to act, before taking up defendant's plea to jurisdiction.

ARGUMENT Issue 1: The trial court erred in dismissing the case with prejudice.

If a claim is not within the court's jurisdiction and the impediment to jurisdiction cannot be removed, the claim must be dismissed: but if the impediment to jurisdiction can be removed, the court should abate the proceedings to allow the plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to cure the jurisdictional problem. American Motorists Ins. v. Fodge, 63 S.W.3d 801,805(Tex. 2001); See Thomas v. Long, 207 S.W.3d 334,338(Tex. 2006),. A petition containing mult- iple claims should not be dismissed just because the court lacks jurisdiction over one of the claims. Thomas at 338-39.

Here, =the lower court dismissed claiming an incurable defect.(C.R. at 120). The jurisdicitional defect being that the court believed Brickley brought this claim under the Texas Penal Code, and that the Penal Code does not provide citizens with private causes of , toe action.(C.R. at88-91). No hearing was had , nor was plaintiff afforded an opportunity to amend his petition.

Generally, if the court does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit, it must dismiss the suit for lack of jurisdiction without rendering a judgment on the merits. Black v. Jackson, 82 S,.W.3d 44,56(Tex.App.-Tyler 2002,no pet.); See Jansen v. Fitzpatrick, 14 S.W.3d 426,431(Tex.App.-Houston[{14th Dist. ] 2000,no pet.) The dismissal must be without prejudice because a dismissal with prejudice is a final decision on the merits. See Black, 82 S.W.3d at 56; Jansen, 14 S.W.3d at 431, On the other hand, if a plaintiff in a suit against a governmental entitiy has been given an opportunity to amend and the plaintiff's amended pleading still does not allege facts that would constitute a waiver of immunity, the court should dismiss the plaintiff's suit with prejudice. Harris Cty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 639(Tex. 2004); City of Carrollton v. Harlan, 180 S.W.3d 894,898(Tex.App.- Dallas 2005, pet. denied); See also Texas A&M Univ. sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 839-40(Tex. 2007)(P is not required to amend its pleadings until after the court rules on the plea to jurisdiction).

The dismissal is with prejudice because a plaintiff should not be permitted to relitigate jurisdiction once a court has determined there is no waiver of governmental immunity. See Harris Cty., 136 S.W.3d at 639; City if Carrollton, 180 S.W.3d at 898.

However, even this was not the case to dismiss with prejudice, because the issue of immunity was never addressed by the court, and had it been, immunity was shown to have been waived by facts presented in Brickley's petition by allegations of violations to TDCJ policy and the law by defendant.(C.R. at 3-4 & 16). Therefore, the lower court acted without any guiding principles in dismissing the case with prejudice, and had no authority to do so.

Issue 2: The trial court erred in dismissing the case for jurisdiction.

Standard of Review: The appellate courts review a challenge to the trial court's jurisdiction de novo. State v. Holland,221 S.W. 3d 639,642(Tex. 2007). The appellate court first looks to the pleadings to determine if the pleader has alleged facts that affi- rmatively demonstrate the court's jurisdiction to hear the cause.

Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v, Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217,226(Tex. 2004). The appellate courtsconstrues the pleadings liberally in favor of the plaintiff, look to the pleader's intent, and accept as true the factual allegations in the pleadings.

Here, the factual allegations of the pleadings show that defendant Walton, stole Brickley's legal work while working in concert with others, and refused to name the other responsible parties. Brickley had a right to the legal work; Walton intended on depriving him of the legal work; Brickley suffered’ harm as a result of the theft; and that harm was a violation to Brickley's civil rights.(C.R. at 8-9). During the course of these actions by Walton , he violated TNGT policy, activley ignoring his duty to provide confiscation © papers for the legal work precluding Brickley the ability to appeal the confiscation of the legal work The harm which resulted in a civil rights violation was the deprivation of Brickley's access fo courts and ability to participate in a legal action by depriving him of his exhibits that he had prepared for legal proceedings.in the United States Supreme Court.. ~ These facts give rise to a cognizable claim and establish the lo tones wer court's jurisdiction. However, the appellee focuses on the illustration of the Texas Penal Code violations required by the TTLA and §1983 civil suit to be demonstrated before a successful claim can be made in a civil suit. See Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code §134.002; See also J’& J Sports Prods. v. JWJ Mgmt., Inc., 324 S.W. 3d 823(Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2010, no pet.)(with respect to civil liability for such actions, the Texas Theft Liability Act(TTLA) makes certain theft offenses subject to civil penalties as well.

Section 134,002 specifically provides for a civil cause of action against a person who commits an offense under section 31.12). See also Mazaheri v. Rosenblatt Law Firm, No.04-24-00433-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 4380(Tex.App.-San Antonio June 25,2025, no pet. h.)(de- monstrating, one essential element to a TTLA claim is ownership of the unlawfully appropriated property. Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code §§ 134.002(2),134.005; Tex.Pen.Code §31.03€a).}) Therefore, simply because Brickley names the elements of the Texas Penal Code's theft statute, the trial court should not have construed the pleadings to pursue a Texas Penal Code criminal claim against the appellee, although they are analoguous, instead should have observed the cl- aims for damages directly nameing TTLA's statute for recovery.

Had the defense of immunity been properly raised, it would have still been waived because the officer's failed to comply with TDCJ policy, and they failed to show that the confiscated property was contraband, and in doing so, they were not entitled to immunity for the claim of theft. Sanchez v. Boone, 579 S.W.3d 526, 2019 Tex.App. LEXIS 4001 (Tex.App. Houston 14th Dist, May 16,2019 no pet.). Therefore, dismissal for jurisdiction was error.

Issue 3: The court erred by not first taking up the matter of plaintiff's request for defendant's attorney to show authority to act.

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 12 states,"a party in a suit or proceeding pending in a cotrrt of this state, may by sworn written motion stating that he believes the suit or proceeding is being prosecuted or defended without authority, cause the attorney to be cited to appear before the court to show authority to act." Brickley filed a motion with an unsworn declaration requesting that attorney Jacob I. Pons, show authority to act as counsel.(C.R. at 114-119), Brickley made claim that Jacob Pons was precluded from representing Mr. Walton, because Mr. Walton was sued in his individual capacity for violations of policy and other laws; where Texas Government Code §402.021 has only authorized the Texas Atto- rney General to "prosecute and defend" "actions in which the state is interested," "Under the Texas Constitution, the attorney general is an execut- ive department officer whose primary duties are to render legal advice in opinions to various political agencies and to represent the State in civil fitigation." Webster v. Comm'n for Law Discipline g Pp ’ 704 S.W.3d 478,2024 Tex. LEXIS 1175 (Tex. 2024).

A suit against an official in his official capacity "seeks to impose liability against the governmental unit rather than on the ' individual specifically named and 'si, in all respects other than name,... a suit against the entity.'" Tex. A&M Univ. Sys. Koseoglu, 233°S29.3d>835;844(Tex. 2007)(quoting Ky. v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 166,105 S.Ct. 3099, 87 L.Ed.2d 114(1985)). Here, the exact opposite is the case. Defendant was, by actions committed, lacking immunity because he was not (1) performing discretionary duties in (2) good faith (3) acting within the scope of his authority. City of Lancaster v. Chambers, 883 $.W.2d 650,653(Tex. 1994).

Being that Mr. Walton did not enjoy immunity, the state was not considered a party and therefore had no interest in the suit.

And although Mr. Walton reserved his right to claim immunity, he never actually made a claim of immunity, nor was he entitled to such a claim. Because Brickley never made a claim under the TTCA, Brickley did not include the state in his civil suit, because the TTCA remedies are in addition to other remedies, he was not requi- red to, Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code §101.003.

Therefore, even now the Texas Attorney General's Office is acting without authority. And since the court refused Brickley appointm<« ent of counsel(C.R. at 63-64), but allowed defendant unauthorized representation, equal protection under the 14th Amendment was violated. coneLuszon The lower -court abused discretion when dismissing this case, because, had liberal interpretation of the pleadings in favor of the petitioner been enjoyed, the case would not have been dismiss-~ ed where Brickley's pleadings would been found in accordance with the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. rather than the Texas Penal Code. And the civil rights claims would have been construed to be in accordance with §1983 rather than the penal code. The references to the Texas Penal: Code would have been found as refer- ences in support of his claim as required by legislation and prec- edent to succeed on the suit. The lower-court would understand *~: that, although the Texas Penal Code does not create a private cause of action; it does not preclude a private cause of action either.

And because there was no hearing ot claim of immunity, or non- curable defects the lower court erred in dismissing the case with prejudice.

Further, because the State is not an interested party, the lower court abused discretion in not first taking up the request for attorney to show authority to act, resulting in defendant being allowed unauthorized protection of the law and plaintiff being denied an authorized protection of law via appointment of counsel, ‘through discretion granted by the courts.

PRAYER For these reasons appellant, James Brickley, asks this Gourt to reverse the decision of the lower court and remand this case to * the trial court for proceedings in accordance with the law, and to authorize the lower court to appoint counsel in the proceeding as seen fit, and to address the Attorney General's authorization to act as attorney before proceeding with preliminary matters.

Respectfully submitted, JAMES BRICKLEY Appellant, pro se 3201 FM 929 Gatesville, Texas 76597 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James Brickley, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Appellant's Brief and Appenix was sent to my agent with explicit instructions to forward to the opposing party via certified mail, RRR. Executed on August 21,2025,

NO. 15-25-00118-cV JAMES BRICKLEY, Appellant, Vv.

NICHOLAS WALTON, Appellee.

APPELLANT'S APPENDIX LIST OF DOCUMENTS 1. The trial Court's judgment .........

2, Plaintiff's Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law @qense# ee 6 oe # ee ee wee ee ** @ @ ee ee ee ee ee) ** *# © © 2 ee ee weeltab 2 3. Plaintiff's Motion Réquesting Jacobi I. Pons to Show - Authority to Actsscscscccuee seen teem eee eee crete eee eee tab 3 TAB 1 CAUSE NO, DC+14-83842 JAMES BRICKLEY, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, § § ¥, § CORYELL COUNTY, TEXAS § NICHOLAS WALTON, § Defendant, § 440TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ORDER - Ow this day the Court considered defendant Nicholas Walton's Plea to the Jurisdiction, Having considered the mation and arguments of the parties, the Court is of the apinion that the motion should in all things be GRANTED. The Court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff James Brickley's claims pursuant to the Texas Penal Cade, The Court also finds that this ig an incurable defect for which leave to amend is futile. H is therefore: ORDERED that defendant Walton’s motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that plaintiff Brickley's claims against defendant Walton are DISMISSED with prejudice.

Signed this ft day of CA i en te , 2035, TUDGE PRESIDING — = = me Filed CORYELL COUN Cg dU 77 2025 fh Hf DISTRICT CLERK

Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. | Tha filer served this document via amall 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 sti certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules, Glorlana Ojeda on behalf of Jacob Pons Bar No. 24139435 [email protected] Envelope ID: 100231302 Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee) Filing Description: 20250429 Ds PTJ Status as of 4/30/2025 8:04 AM CST Associated Case Patty: Nicholas Walton | provide a

_ | Name BarNumber | Emall TimastampSubmitted | Status Brdnay Moteld | ‘britney [email protected] | 4/20/2025 3:22:29 PM | SENT Jacob Pons [24120445 | [email protected] | 4/29/2025 3:22.28 PM | SENT Gase Contacts Name BarNumber | Email TimestampSubmitted | Statue Gloriaria Ojeda ~~) gloviana.ojeda thong. lexas.gav } 4/24/2026 3:22:20 BM | SENT TAB 20° CAUSE NO, DO-24-55847 JAMES BRICKLEY, § IN THE DISTRICT GOURT OF Plaintiff, § Vv. § CORYELL COUNTY, TEXAS NICHOLAS WALTON, . : Defendant. § 440th JUDICIAL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF'S REQEUST FOR FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Plaintiff, James Brickley, aske the Court to file the Findings of fact and conciusions of law.

INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff, Jamas Brickley, sued defendant, Nicholas Walton Fox theft and violation of Brickley's inmate civil rights for his pastsinfthe theft of Rrickley's legal materials which affected the outcome of hie parental rights case, Mr. Walton was sued in + his individual capacity, where he made no claim of Linmundity from suit;fhere were no hearings on the facts of the case; and the case was dismissed with prejudice. .

2. The Court signed an order dismissing the case with prejudice on June 10th,2025, filed June 11th, 2025.

REQUEST 3. Plaintiff asks the Court to file findings of fact and conelusi~- eng of law and require the court clark to mail copies to all parties, as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 297.

4. Plaintiff files this request within 20ddays after the Court signed judgment or order. Tex.R.Civ.P. 295. ully submitted, compel Leow JUN 26 2025 3201 FM 929 GATESVILLE, TEXAS 76597 DISTRICT CLERK 1 140 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James Brickley, certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing motion was sent to my agent with express instructions t to forward the sama to the attorney for the defendanttat the addr~ ass below via certified mail, return reciept requested. Executed on this 18th day of June, 2025.

JACOBI I. PONS ASST. ATTORNEY GENERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT DEFENSE DIVISION OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL P,O, BOX 12548, CAPITOL STATION AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 kgf Be IE Fne dors PFANES BRICKLEY 3201 FM 929 GATESVILLE, TEXAS 76597

TAB 3 hay Ne Pa ORS JAMES BRLCKLEY, § 2 TAN PLSTRICT COURT OF Plaintifeé, § v. CORVELL. COUNPY, ‘HExAg & ‘ NICHOLAS WALTON, 2 he fandarit & ‘40th FUDICTAL DISTRICT PLAINTIVE'S MOTION REQUESTING JACOBI T, FANS 'TO SHOW AUTHORETY TO) ACT Plaintiff, James Rrickiny, Files this verified motion » PEGues EER Jaeehi I. Pons ta show their authority to defend this ait on “bohalt ef defendant, Sicholas Ualton, as allowed hy Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 12.

INTROMUCTION 1. Plaintiff, James Brickley, sued defendant, Nicholas uakeon, in his individual capacity for acts violative of FOCd policy and the Texas Yonal Cede da hie toedividual supaatiy ane authorized hy the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Cade S'34,0%1) for theft and violation of Wirickley's imate civil rights.

2. On Hay 16,7025 Prickiey recieved Walton's " Griginal Answer" ubmittiad by Jacobi 1. Pons, Asat. Atkerney Ceneral, filed eleg- tronieally on Aprib PH, AUFS. On May 10,7825, Rriekley ree Filed ! COUNTY an aaswer: to Milton's reauests for disclosure in Defendant's - Fan AL ans Mrisinal Aaver, yo’ Sg ne : iN go 70s BACKGRODAN ‘Bala ta STRUCT CLERK 3, Pladntayf helieves that Jacobi loss is defendine this suit without the authority nf the Office of fhe Atbrarney General.

4, Plaintiff hus Filed this suit asa@inest tNeholas Waltan in his individual capacity, due to the nature of the allegations, which would viulate TROE policy and the wound law as laid out as prides in the petition, he would not be entitled to sovereign immunity, therefore, the Offiee of the Attorney General has po authority be represent the defoudant in this suit.

ARGUEENT A. ALTHORITIES a, When a party alleges an attorney ia prosecubiig or defending A Suit on behalf of another without authority, the challenged athor- ney get appar before the eeurt to show his or ber authority to aot, Tex, ,R.Giv.P. 23, Hh, dimter Rule 12, the Court shaulé cite dseobl T. Pens and require “hin to-appear fora hearing to show hie awthority té defend an. -- behalf eF Nicholas Walton. #. Texas Cavernsent Cade § 462.071 ives the Aktorney Goneral autherity ta “prosecute and defend all action in whieh the atare i@ interastod hefare the Supreme Caurt and euurts of appeals".

Powever, Ehere is na authorite to Fepresent Nieholas Wal bain ven sic in his dineividual capacity, beeuuse the atate doog not have an interest ji thie suit, A claim of savereian Awmunity may ne £ he assumed but mise fdrst he ecladmed hefare it can be recwanized hy the court. Where Walter merely reserved his right toe wake the wlainm in his Original Snawer, he had not vagtually ade the clin, - CORCLUSTON : Re Plait ge reqnedks q hearing to have Jacobi 3, Pons shew autho- © rity to get dn this sase a# atterney for defendant in hia individ- val capasity, ar shew that he shoule net be sited in his individual aapucd by.

PRAYER 0, For these reasans, plaintiff asks Chia cemrt te cite Jacobi I.

Fons to appear bafere the Caurt ond show his autherity te dafend this case on behalf af Sieholas Valten, to Forward to the defendant ar CERTIFICATE Noapeckiully s submitted, = J a 7 pie ’ 4 f. Bee Cages Le, 2, Ga the TAM ARTCRLRY v Bani fe 999 GA'PESVILLE, TEXAS 76597 OF SERVICE ‘TJ, James frickley, hereby certify that T have sent a trie and Gorrect aepy of the ferepoing motion and the accompanying Unswors Heclaration: of tho Plaintif® to my agent with express insleuctions ... the 2nd day of Jaume, 2075, ‘GAGQRT TP, PANS ASST, ATTORNEY GRENR AL LAW ENFORCEMENT DRFENSK Bry, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GERTRAT, Ff. BOX Psa ; CAPITOL STATTON AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 wee the seddyess iG below, Executed on this £ et a an OL fhpes JAMES Ae ICKLEY “ 3Otd FM 929 CATRSVYELLE | TAKA.

PHSGY