Jeffrey Mann v. Denton County, Denton County Sheriff's Department, Paige McCormick, and Benny Parkey ( 2014 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-13-00217-CV
JEFFREY MANN APPELLANT
V.
DENTON COUNTY, DENTON APPELLEES
COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPARTMENT, PAIGE
MCCORMICK, AND
BENNY PARKEY
------------
FROM THE 211TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 2008-30359-211
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
----------
In three issues, appellant Jeffrey Mann appeals the trial court’s order that
dismissed his claims against appellees Denton County, Denton County Sheriff’s
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
Department, Paige McCormick, and Benny Parkey. Because we conclude that
the trial court’s dismissal order is void, we set it aside and dismiss this appeal.
Background Facts
In late 2008, appellant, acting pro se, sued appellees civilly. Almost a year
later, he amended his pleading. In the amended pleading, he alleged that
appellees had failed to return his personal property that was seized in 2002 in
connection with criminal charges. Specifically, he pled that in 2003, a trial court
had ordered the return of “non-contraband evidence,” but appellees had refused
to comply with the order despite his prolonged attempts to retrieve the property. 2
From those allegations, appellant brought several legal claims, including
breach of contract, fraud, constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of
several constitutional and statutory rights, obstruction of justice, and abuse of
process. As relief, he sought, among other requests, damages of more than $10
million and the immediate release of his property. 3 Appellees answered the
claims by filing general denials, pleas to the jurisdiction on the basis of sovereign
immunity, pleas in abatement on the ground that appellant lacked standing, and
affirmative defenses.
In October 2009, the Honorable L. Dee Shipman, who was presiding over
the suit, voluntarily recused himself and asked the administrative judge to assign
2
Appellees concede on appeal that “[b]eginning as early as 2004,
[appellant] made several efforts to obtain any non-contraband property.”
3
Much of the property has since been destroyed.
2
a new judge to the case. The administrative judge assigned the Honorable
Phillip Vick to preside. Judge Vick signed an order in the case in November
2009. 4
In March 2013, Judge Shipman signed an order dismissing appellant’s
remaining claims. The order stated,
ON THIS 28th day of March, 2013, this case was called on the
[court’s] dismissal docket. After reviewing the pleadings and record
before it, the Court is of the opinion that this Court does not have
subject matter jurisdiction. The Court finds that the [appellant has]
failed to plead facts affirmatively showing that this trial court has
jurisdiction.
IT IS [THEREFORE] ORDERED . . . that [appellant’s] cause of
action against [appellees] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE to the
refiling of the same in any form.
After appellant filed unfruitful postjudgment motions, including a motion in which
he argued that Judge Shipman was not authorized to sign the dismissal order,
appellant brought this appeal.
Void Judgment
In his first issue, appellant contends that the trial court’s judgment is void
because Judge Shipman signed it after he had voluntarily recused himself. He
argues that “[o]nce a [j]udge invokes the laws and rules of this [s]tate, he cannot
simply side step them at a later time without justification or good cause.” We
agree.
4
This order dismissed appellant’s claims against another defendant and
severed those claims into a new cause number.
3
After a judge is voluntarily or involuntarily recused from a case, the judge
generally must not make further orders nor take further action. See In re Amos,
397 S.W.3d 309, 314 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013, orig. proceeding) (“Any
involvement by the recused judge after recusal can only disserve the public
policy of preserving public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.”); Mixon
v. Moye, 860 S.W.2d 209, 210 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1993, orig. proceeding).
In fact, under some circumstances, a judge loses authority to act, at least
temporarily, upon a party’s motion for recusal. Under rule of civil procedure 18a,
when a party files a motion to recuse a judge before evidence has been offered
at trial, the judge “must take no further action in the case until the motion has
been decided, except for good cause stated in writing or on the record.” Tex. R.
Civ. P. 18a(f)(2)(A). When a motion to recuse is granted, an administrative judge
“must transfer the case to another court or assign another judge to the case.”
Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(g)(7).
Typically, any order signed by a recused judge (or a judge against whom a
recusal motion is pending) is wholly void and must be set aside. See In re
M.E.H., No. 02-02-00376-CV, 2004 WL 1471092, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
July 1, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.); Johnson v. Pumjani, 56 S.W.3d 670, 672 (Tex.
App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (“[I]f a trial court fails to comply with the
rules governing motions for recusal, all subsequent actions by the court in the
case are void.”); Mixon, 860 S.W.2d at 210; Dunn v. Cnty. of Dallas, 794 S.W.2d
4
560, 563 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1990, no writ) (concluding that a summary judgment
granted by a recused judge was void).
Appellees recognize that Judge Shipman signed the dismissal order after
recusing himself. They argue, however, that in the order, he provided good
cause for dismissing the case despite the recusal. According to appellees, this
good cause is that
after five years on the [t]rial [c]ourt’s docket there was nothing which
[appellant] could have averred which would have overcome
[a]ppellees’ immunity, the lack of standing, limitations, and various
other bars robbing the [t]rial [c]ourt of subject matter jurisdiction.
Dismissal with prejudice was proper since leave to amend would not
result in any different allegations that would somehow vest the [t]rial
[c]ourt with jurisdiction.
In other words, appellees contend that the good cause for Judge Shipman’s
action despite his recusal is that his decision on the merits of their pleas to the
jurisdiction was undoubtedly correct.
Before the 2011 amendment to rule 18a, the rule stated that a judge who
entered an order of voluntary recusal could continue to take action in the case
upon “good cause stated in the order in which such action [was] taken.”
See Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(c) (West 2003, amended 2011). Rule 18a no longer
expressly provides that a recused judge may continue taking action upon a
showing of good cause. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(f)(1) (explaining that the
challenged judge must respond to the motion by signing an order of recusal or
referring the motion to a regional presiding judge), (2) (contemplating that a judge
5
may continue to take action for good cause before the “motion has been
decided”).
For the purpose of resolving this appeal efficiently, 5 we will assume,
without deciding, that under rule 18a as amended in 2011, a recused judge may
still continue taking action in a case upon a showing of good cause. Even so, we
cannot conclude that the trial court’s dismissal order states the type of “good
cause” for continuing to act that rule 18a contemplates. Two decisions from
other appellate courts support our conclusion.
In In re Whatley, one of our sister courts considered whether a trial judge’s
orders were void when the judge had signed them despite the pendency of a
motion for recusal. No. 14-05-01222-CV, 2006 WL 2257399, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 8, 2006, orig. proceeding) (mem. op. on reh’g). 6 A
party argued that in the challenged orders, the judge had stated good cause for
continuing to act. Id. Our sister court disagreed, stating,
The subject [orders do] not have “good cause” language which might
suffice for the trial court to take further action in the face of a
pending motion to recuse. Though the . . . orders mention “good
cause,” the “good cause” required by Rule 18a must relate to the
necessity for taking further action in a case in which a recusal motion
is pending, not to any “good cause” that might support the merits of
the underlying motion. Nothing in the orders indicates that the judge
appointed guardians in the face of a pending recusal motion, for
5
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
6
On a basis unrelated to the issue in this appeal, the supreme court later
disagreed with the granting of relief in Whatley. See Gonzalez v. Guilbot, 315
S.W.3d 533, 539–40 (Tex. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 951 (2011).
6
example, because circumstances made it necessary to act on this
matter without following the regular statutory recusal procedure. Our
review of the orders indicates that the “good cause” stated in the
orders was included to facilitate appointment of temporary and
permanent guardians, and not for the purpose of taking “further
action” in a case while a recusal motion was pending. . . . [N]othing
in the record of this case [shows] why it was necessary for the judge
to rule on the guardianship without first following the recusal-motion
procedures outlined in [rule 18a].
Id. (emphasis added).
Similarly, in Johnson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.,
another sister court considered whether a trial judge erred by granting a motion
for summary judgment when a recusal motion was pending. No. 01-97-00298-
CV, 1999 WL 164464, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 25, 1999, no
pet.) (not designated for publication). Although the challenged judge’s order
stated that the plaintiff’s claims were frivolous, did not have a realistic chance of
success, and lacked an “arguable basis in law or fact,” the appellate court held
that this language did not qualify as good cause for the judge’s continued actions
under rule 18a. Id.
Like the courts in Whatley and Johnson, we conclude that the “good
cause” required by rule 18a cannot relate merely to the merits of the challenged
judge’s action but must instead concern a justification for the challenged judge to
act at a specific time rather than waiting for the appropriate judge to act at
another time. 7 See Whatley, 2006 WL 2257399, at *1; Johnson, 1999 WL
7
Our holding in this regard is particularly apt when, as here, the recused
judge’s action disposes of all issues in the case.
7
164464, at *1; cf. In re G.A., No. 01-11-00565-CV, 2012 WL 1068630, at *6–7
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 29, 2012, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (holding
that a finding of “extraordinary circumstances” to extend an impending dismissal
deadline in a suit for the termination of parental rights qualified as good cause
under rule 18a for the entry of an extension order by the challenged judge); In re
Toohey, No. 06-06-00070-CV, 2006 WL 1708655, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—
Texarkana June 23, 2006, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (concluding that there
was good cause for a judge to act despite a pending recusal motion because a
party had sought emergency, ex parte relief in a child custody dispute).
Construing rule 18a in the way that appellees propose—justifying a
recused judge’s action as long as it is decidedly meritorious—would allow the
limited good cause exception to engulf the general prohibition against a recused
judge’s further involvement. See Mercer v. Driver, 923 S.W.2d 656, 659 (Tex.
App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, orig. proceeding) (stating that the good cause
exception must be applied in “limited circumstances”); see also Riga v. Comm’n
for Lawyer Discipline, 224 S.W.3d 795, 797–98 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2007, pet. denied) (holding that when a recusal motion was pending, the
challenged judge’s order was void even though, as in this case, the order
concerned a ruling on jurisdiction); Watson v. Thompson, No. 01-95-00585-CV,
1996 WL 54175, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 8, 1996, no writ)
(not designated for publication) (holding that an order granting summary
judgment was void because it was entered while a recusal motion was pending);
8
Feist v. Sekaly, 739 S.W.2d 491, 492 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1987, no writ)
(“Appellee further argues that even if the failure to follow [rule 18a] is error, it is
harmless error because the summary judgment motion is, as a matter of law, well
taken. This is beside the point. If [rule 18a] is mandatory, then it must be
complied with.”).
Here, the record contains no good cause, as properly contemplated by rule
18a, for Judge Shipman to sign the dismissal order. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a. In
other words, the record does not explain why, after the litigation had been
pending for more than four years, circumstances required Judge Shipman to sign
the order on March 28, 2013 rather than allowing Judge Vick to consider the
parties’ arguments on jurisdiction at another time. We therefore sustain
appellant’s first issue and conclude that the dismissal order is void. See M.E.H.,
2004 WL 1471092, at *2; Mixon, 860 S.W.2d at 210.
Appellees urge us, even upon our conclusion that Judge Shipman lacked
good cause to sign the order, to decide the jurisdictional issues raised in their
brief rather than remanding this case to the trial court. They contend that
“dismissal is inevitable.” But when an appealed-from judgment is void, we have
no jurisdiction to address the merits of parties’ arguments; rather, we must simply
declare the judgment void, vacate it, and dismiss the appeal. 8 Freedom
8
We recognize that arguments concerning subject matter jurisdiction may
normally be raised for the first time on appeal. See Univ. of N. Tex. v. City of
Denton, 348 S.W.3d 44, 49 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, no pet.). But this case
9
Commc’ns, Inc. v. Coronado, 372 S.W.3d 621, 623–24 (Tex. 2012); Waite v.
Waite, 150 S.W.3d 797, 800 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. denied)
(“[I]f . . . the judgment is void, we can go no further.”); see also State ex rel. Latty
v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex. 1995); In re T.D.S.T., 287 S.W.3d 268,
272 n.8 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009, pet. denied). Accordingly, we decline to
address any arguments extraneous to the analysis above.
Conclusion
Having sustained appellant’s first, dispositive issue, we declare the trial
court’s March 28, 2013 order void, vacate it, and dismiss this appeal. See Tex.
R. App. P. 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.
DELIVERED: October 9, 2014
is not properly on appeal; no valid order exists that may be appealed from. Thus,
we likewise decline to consider appellant’s second and third issues.
10