Full Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana No. 06-26-00095-CV IN RE ELLIS FARLEY Original Mandamus Proceeding Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Ellis Farley, does not agree with what he refers to as the trial court’s “unsigned temporary final [child custody] order.” As a result, on August 10, 2026, he filed a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus asking this Court to compel the Honorable Angela Saucier, presiding judge of the 76th Judicial District Court of Titus County, Texas, and “her official court reporter to immediately prepare and deliver all verbatim transcripts of previous hearings, bench remarks, and the unrecorded audio records of the in-chambers minor child interviews at zero cost under [Farley]’s active [Rule 145 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure] cost waiver.”1 See TEX. R. CIV. P. 145. We deny Farley’s petition for a writ of mandamus because (1) we lack mandamus jurisdiction over the official court reporter of the 76th Judicial District Court, and (2) we find that Farley has failed to comply with, among other things, Rules 52.3 and 52.7 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.2 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3, 52.7. I. Mandamus Jurisdiction We first address Farley’s allegation that this Court has mandamus jurisdiction over the 76th Judicial District Court’s official court reporter. To the contrary, we may issue a writ of mandamus only “against a judge of a district, statutory county, statutory probate county, or county court in the court of appeals district.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(b) (Supp.). That jurisdiction does not extend to other parties, such as district attorneys, district court clerks, or 1 Farley does not indicate how the official court reporter has the ability to transcribe “unrecorded audio records.” (Emphasis added). 2 Farley also asks this Court to issue an emergency order staying the execution of the August 7, 2026, oral custody rulings and to order the children to be immediately returned to him. We deny his request. 2 official court reporters unless such mandamus relief would be necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a) (Supp.); see In re Shugart, 528 S.W.3d 794, 796 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2017, orig. proceeding). Farley seeks a writ of mandamus against the official court reporter for the 76th Judicial District Court. In general, this Court lacks mandamus jurisdiction over her, and, considering the current set of circumstances before us, there is nothing in the record to show that a writ of mandamus against the court reporter is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. II. The Contents of Farley’s Petition Farley bears “the burden of providing this Court with a sufficient record to establish [his entitlement] to mandamus relief.” Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1); In re Norvell, 610 S.W.3d 598, 600 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“[I]t is fundamental that the court have a proper record before reaching the merits.”). Rule 52.3(c) and (d) require a petitioner to include a table of contents and an index of authorities in his petition. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(c), (d). Farley failed to do so. Farley was also required to include a statement of facts in his petition, “stat[ing] concisely and without argument the facts pertinent to the issues or points presented. Every statement of fact in the petition must be supported by citation to competent evidence included in the appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(h). Although Farley included a statement of facts in his petition, he did not cite to competent evidence in support of those facts. See id. 3 Furthermore, Farley was required to file “a certified or sworn copy of every document that [wa]s material to [his] claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a)(1). We are aware that Farley alleges in his petition that the trial court and the court reporter prevented him from obtaining file-marked documents and transcripts. Yet, he did not provide the Court with a single document, much less a properly certified document, to support the allegations contained in his petition. Instead, Farley’s petition merely sets forth a myriad of conclusory allegations against the trial court (and the court reporter). Such allegations demand evidentiary support of some kind. III. Farley’s Purported Supplemental Record On August 17, 2026, Farley filed a “FORMAL SUPPLEMENTAL RECORD EXHIBITION, EMERGENCY STATUS UPDATE, AND APPENDIX REGARDING THE SYSTEMIC BLACKOUT, CONCEALMENT OF RECORDS, AND COVERT COMMERCIAL NETWORK LEAKAGE BY COURT PERSONNEL” pursuant to Rule 52.7(b). Rule 52.7(b) states that “[a]fter the record is filed, [which never happened in this case,] relator or any other party to the proceeding may file additional materials for inclusion of the record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(b). Farley claims, among other new allegations, that the court reporter “continue[d] to demand an unauthorized, upfront out-of-pocket cash extortion fee totaling $2,050.00 from a 100% disabled combat veteran, completely ignoring Relator’s active Rule 145 Statement of Inability to Afford Costs file-stamped back on May 15, 2026 [Rule 145].” In support of his allegations, Farley relies on his statement of inability to afford costs and seemingly concedes that 4 it exists. He is also aware of the date on which the district court clerk file-marked his statement. But he now claims that he cannot provide the Court with a single document to support the statement’s existence. In addition, Farley directs the Court to what he refers to as a “SWORN RECOLLECTION OF THE AUGUST 7, 2026[,] TRIAL-BY-AMBUSH” and states, Because Relator cannot obtain the official typed transcripts due to this administrative blockade, Relator logs his official, sworn recollection of the July 16, 2026[,] and August 7, 2026[,] oral settings pursuant to [Rule] 52.7(b). Local court administration is actively utilizing this artificial lack of transcripts to keep the regional and appellate review panels completely blind to severe structural violations. In support of his contention that the trial court or the trial court’s personnel prevented him from acquiring court documents, Farley includes a “FORMAL SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX INDEX OF SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS.” Notably, Farley’s “appendix index” is just that, an index. It does not contain one exhibit. For example, “EXHIBIT C” of the “appendix index” is described by Farley as a “[t]ext copy of Respondent Official Court Reporter Cresta M. LeFevre’s Contest to Litigant’s Statement of Inability to Afford Costs, file-stamped August 12, 2026, at 4:17 [p.m.], in direct violation of the active Rule 18a [of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure] statutory stay.” See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a. Despite having all of that information, Farley claims he is unable to provide the Court with the “[t]ext copy” of the court reporter’s contest or any other evidence of its existence. Farley also furnishes the Court with his own recitations of the contents of emails, “Decoy Thread Entr[ies],” “Historical Decoy Baseline Entr[ies],” “Pleading Text Excerpt[s],” and “Portal Tracking Note[s].” Again, Farley is able to recall very specific details in the alleged 5 emails, entries, excerpts, and notes. For instance, in one of his “Portal Tracking Note[s],” Farley recalls, Document was actively filed by the Respondent Court Reporter on August 12, 2026, at 4:17 [p.m.]. This filing occurred a full [twenty-four] hours AFTER Relator’s Rule 18a Motion to Recuse was formally accepted into the system on August 11, 2026, as was logged August 10th filed late August 9th establishing an open violation of the mandatory statutory freeze mandated under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a(f) [Rule 18a]. (Third alteration in original). Although his note contains filing dates and times, along with other detailed information, Farley does not attach even one piece of competent evidence, such as a copy of a text or an email, that would allow this Court to begin addressing the substantive merits of his petition. IV. Conclusion Accordingly, we deny Farley’s petition for a writ of mandamus. Scott E. Stevens Chief Justice Date Submitted: August 28, 2026 Date Decided: August 31, 2026 6