Order filed January 26, 2023.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-23-00038-CV

IN RE KYLE FRENCH, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

280th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2021-83581

ORDER

On January 20, 2023, relator Kyle French filed a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 

52. In the petition, relator asks this court to vacate the October 24, 2022 order 

finding him in contempt of court and committing him to county jail. Relator has 

not filed a motion for temporary relief, however, he requests the following: “[t]hat 

this Court issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus commanding that the Relator be brought 

immediately before this Court”; “[t]hat Relator be admitted to bail pending a final 
2

ruling on this Petition”; and “[t]hat the Court order that Relator be released from 

custody and restraint.”

Relator’s petition, appendix, and record are not in compliance with the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Rules of Appellate procedure require a 

party, who files a petition for writ of habeas corpus in in a court of appeals, to 

include proof that the relator is restrained. Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(d)(4), (k)(1)(D); 

In re Serrano, 482 S.W.3d 134, 135 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2015, orig. proceeding). 

Although referenced in relator’s petition, neither relator’s appendix nor the record 

include a “Sheriff’s Certificate of Custody” demonstrating proof that relator is 

currently confined. See In re Huitrado-Soto, No. 05-16-00515-CV, 2016 WL 

2353898, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 3, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) 

(holding trial court’s order, which was stamped “IN JAIL,” did not provide proof 

of then present confinement required by Rule 52); In re Miller, No. 05-14-001023-

CV, 2014 WL 3882317, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Aug. 7, 2014, orig. proceeding) 

(mem. op.) (holding that website print out that purported to show relator’s 

confinement by Collin County Sheriff’s Department did not provide proof required 

by Rule 52). 

Additionally, relator’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and mandamus 

record contain unredacted sensitive information regarding relator’s minor child. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 9.9(a)(3). The documents have been pulled down from this 

Court’s website. Parties are required to redact all sensitive information in 

documents filed in this court unless the inclusion of the sensitive data is 

specifically required by a statute, court rule, or administrative regulation. Tex. R. 
3

App. P. 9.9(b). There is no statute, court rule, or administrative regulation 

requiring the inclusion of sensitive data.

Moreover, it does not appear that relator has filed with the petition a 

certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for 

relief as required by Rule 52.7(a)(1). The petition references material documents

not in the record, including but not limited to the real party in interest’s petition for 

enforcement of final protective order and the reporter’s record from the September 

21, 2022 hearing on the same.

Finally, Rule 52.7(a)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure requires 

the relator to file with the petition “a properly authenticated transcript of any 

relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered 

into evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the 

matter complained.” Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(2). Relator’s record, which contains 

a reporter’s record for the contempt hearing on October 24, 2022, does not include

all of the exhibits from the hearing. 

We ORDER relator to cure the deficiencies identified above within 10 days 

of the date of order. By this order, the Court gives relator notice that the failure to 

address timely these deficiencies will result in the involuntary dismissal of his 

petition for writ of habeas corpus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Zimmerer, Spain, and Hassan.