in Re Vicker Sichanthavong, Relator

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
________________________
No. 07-19-00312-CV
________________________
IN RE VICKER SICHANTHAVONG, RELATOR
Original Proceeding
Arising From Proceedings Before County Court at Law Number One
Potter County, Texas
Trial Court No. 103,599-1; Honorable R. Walton Weaver, Presiding
November 18, 2019
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and PARKER, JJ.
Proceeding pro se, Vicker Sichanthavong, has filed an application for a writ of
habeas corpus seeking to have an arrest warrant issued for Tina Hernandez. 1 For the
reasons explained herein, we dismiss this request for habeas relief for want of jurisdiction.
1 Sichanthavong has filed several suits against Hernandez seeking delinquent rent and wants her
prosecuted for theft of service pursuant to section 31.04 of the Texas Penal Code. His appeal in a related
matter was disposed of this same date in appellate cause number 07-19-00145-CV, in which this court
affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of an underlying suit for Sichanthavong’s failure to properly serve
Hernandez.
This court’s original jurisdiction to issue writs of habeas corpus is limited. TEX.
GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (West Supp. 2018). Our jurisdiction is limited to cases in
which restraint of liberty is by virtue of an order, process, or commitment issued by a court
or judge because of the violation of an order, judgment, or decree previously made,
rendered, or entered in a civil case. Id.
Sichanthavong seeks to use this habeas proceeding as a manner of instructing
“the examining and committing Magistrate to allow this case to be trial [sic] as a criminal
case . . . .” As such, Sichanthavong is not seeking relief from restraint. To the contrary,
he is seeking to restrain Hernandez. Because he has not presented any jurisdictional
facts showing entitlement to habeas relief from this court, we have no other option than
to dismiss this proceeding.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Sichanthavong’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed
for want of jurisdiction.
Patrick A. Pirtle
Justice
2