Jerry Laza v. City of Palestine, Texas ( 2022 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
No. 06-18-00051-CV
JERRY LAZA, Appellant
V.
CITY OF PALESTINE, TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 349th District Court
Anderson County, Texas
Trial Court No. DCCV16-356-349
Before Morriss, C.J., Stevens and van Cleef, JJ.
ORDER
Nicholas D. Mosser has filed a motion captioned Verified Motion to Recuse, Disqualify,
and Transfer, asking that each of the three justices of this Court recuse or disqualify themselves
from presiding over a show cause hearing on Monday, October 31, scheduled pursuant to this
Court’s Order to Show Cause issued on September 16, 2022. Mosser seeks recusal or
disqualification because he claims that the justices of this Court have made false allegations
against him and “cannot be entrusted with presiding over this matter with impartiality.”
Rule 16.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate procedure states, in pertinent part:
(a) Motion. A party may file a motion to recuse a justice or judge before
whom the case is pending. The motion must be filed promptly after the party has
reason to believe that the justice or judge should not participate in deciding the
case.
(b) Decision. Before any further proceeding in the case, the challenged
justice or judge must either remove himself or herself from all participation in the
case or certify the matter to the entire court, which will decide the motion by a
majority of the remaining judges sitting en banc. The challenged justice or judge
must not sit with the remainder of the court to consider the motion as to him or
her.
TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3.
Pursuant to the procedure set forth in Rule 16.3(b), upon the filing of the recusal motion
and prior to any further proceedings in this appeal, each of the challenged justices of this Court
considered the motion in chambers. Chief Justice Josh R. Morriss, III, and Justices Scott E.
Stevens and Charles van Cleef each found no reason to recuse or disqualify themselves and
certified the matter to the remaining members of the Court, en banc. See id.; McCullough v.
Kitzman, 50 S.W.3d 87, 88 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, pet. denied) (per curiam) (order). This
2
Court then followed the accepted procedure set out in Rule 16.3(b). See TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3(b);
Manges v. Guerra, 673 S.W.2d 180, 185 (Tex. 1984); McCullough, 50 S.W.3d at 88.
Having carefully examined the pleadings and record as to the allegations pertaining to
each challenged justice and finding the allegations to be unsubstantiated, we issue the following
orders:
ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO CHIEF JUSTICE JOSH R. MORRISS, III
This Court, Chief Justice Josh R. Morriss, III, not participating, finds no reason to recuse
or disqualify Chief Justice Morriss. See TEX. R. APP. P. 16.2; TEX. R. CIV. P. 18b. Accordingly,
Mosser’s motion to recuse or disqualify Chief Justice Morriss is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT
STEVENS, J.
VAN CLEEF, J.
MORRISS, C.J., not participating
Date: October 24, 2022
ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO JUSTICE SCOTT E. STEVENS
This Court, Justice Scott E. Stevens not participating, finds no reason to recuse or
disqualify Justice Stevens. See TEX. R. APP. P. 16.2; TEX. R. CIV. P. 18b. Accordingly, Mosser’s
motion to recuse or disqualify Justice Stevens is denied.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT
MORRISS, C.J.
VAN CLEEF, J.
STEVENS, J., not participating
Date: October 24, 2022
ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO JUSTICE CHARLES VAN CLEEF
This Court, Justice Charles van Cleef not participating, finds no reason to recuse or
disqualify Justice van Cleef. See TEX. R. APP. P. 16.2; TEX. R. CIV. P. 18b. Accordingly,
Mosser’s motion to recuse or disqualify Justice van Cleef is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT
MORRISS, C.J.
STEVENS, J.
VAN CLEEF, J., not participating
Date: October 24, 2022
4