Sheik Tehuti v. Lisa R. Woodard ( 2018 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-17-00395-CV
SHEIK TEHUTI APPELLANT
V.
LISA R. WOODARD APPELLEE
----------
FROM THE 48TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 048-295637-17
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION 1
----------
Pro se Appellant Sheik Tehuti attempts to appeal the November 7,
2017 interlocutory orders denying his “Motion to Transfer Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 202” and “Motion to Transfer . . . All Cases to Another Venue from
Judge Wade Birdwell’s Court and Claims of Judicial Misconduct Pending . . . ”
(the denied transfer orders). The underlying case was transferred from the
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
342nd District Court to the 48th District Court on the same day that Appellant’s
motions were denied. Thus, this appeal is moot to the extent that the transfer of
Appellant’s case to a different court and judge was the relief he sought. See
Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137, 166–67 (Tex. 2012); Gen. Land
Office v. OXY U.S.A., Inc., 789 S.W.2d 569, 570–72 (Tex. 1990). Alternatively,
an order denying a motion to recuse is not an appealable interlocutory order,
Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(f); Hawkins v. Walker, 233 S.W.3d 380, 401 (Tex. App.—Fort
Worth 2007, pet. denied), nor is an order denying a motion to disqualify, Vega v.
Lira, No. 01-16-00369-CV, 2016 WL 4253696, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] Aug. 11, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.).
On January 22, 2018, we notified the parties of our concern that we lack
jurisdiction over this appeal because the denied transfer orders do not appear to
be appealable interlocutory orders or a final judgment, and we also notified them
that the appeal appears moot to the extent that the relief Appellant sought was
the transfer of his case to a different court. We informed the parties that we
could dismiss the appeal absent a response showing grounds for continuing the
appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3, 44.3. We have received no response.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (West Supp. 2017) (listing types of
appealable interlocutory orders); Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191,
195 (Tex. 2001) (stating that generally an appeal may be taken only from a final
2
judgment and that a judgment is final and appealable if it disposes of all parties
and all issues); see also Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM
PANEL: PITTMAN, J.; SUDDERTH, C.J.; and WALKER, J.
SUDDERTH, C.J., concurs without opinion.
DELIVERED: April 5, 2018
3