in Re: Larry Blake Washington ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • DENY and Opinion Filed October 25, 2022
    S  In The
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    No. 05-22-01087-CV
    IN RE LARRY BLAKE WASHINGTON, Relator
    Original Proceeding from the 468th Judicial District Court
    Collin County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 468-55854-2017
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Partida-Kipness, and Justice Smith
    Opinion by Chief Justice Burns
    Relator is a pro se father who is a party to a custody dispute, and he has filed
    this mandamus action to challenge the denial of a hearing on his motion to recuse.
    Entitlement to mandamus relief requires a relator to show that the trial court
    clearly abused its discretion and that he lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. In re
    Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 
    148 S.W.3d 124
    , 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding).
    “An order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only for abuse of discretion
    on appeal from the final judgment.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j)(1)(A). Thus, “mandamus
    is not available for the denial of a motion to recuse.” In re McKee, 
    248 S.W.3d 164
    ,
    165 (Tex. 2007) (orig. proceeding). This is because the denial “is reviewable on
    appeal from the final judgment.” In re Smale, No. 05-17-01466-CV, 
    2018 WL 360050
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 11, 2018, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.)
    (citing, inter alia, TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j)(1)(A)) (concluding there was an adequate
    remedy by appeal for complaint in the recusal context concerning a judge’s “removal
    of the October 3, 2017 hearing from the docket”).
    This original proceeding arises from the denial order because relator’s
    complaint concerns a procedural safeguard (a hearing) that relator maintains was
    meant to be in place for that order. Relator therefore has an adequate remedy by
    appealing the final judgment. Accordingly, we deny his petition.
    We also strike the petition and supporting appendix due to relator’s failure to
    redact sensitive information from the appendix. See TEX. R. APP. P. 9.9. Finally,
    we deny relator’s motion to stay as moot.
    /Robert D. Burns, III/
    ROBERT D. BURNS, III
    CHIEF JUSTICE
    221087F.P05
    –2–
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-22-01087-CV

Filed Date: 10/25/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/2/2022