CHARLESTON v. PATE

Full title: JOHN WAYNE CHARLESTON, Appellant v. KENNETH PATE, ET AL., Appellees

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Sixth District, Texarkana

Date published: Dec 31, 2004

No. 06-04-00141-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 31, 2004)

Opinion

No. 06-04-00141-CV

Submitted: December 30, 2004.

Decided: December 31, 2004. Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction, December 31, 2004

On Appeal from the Fifth Judicial District Court, Cass County, Texas, Trial Court No. 04-C-230.

Before MORRISS, C.J., ROSS and CORNELIUS,^_ JJ.

_ William J. Cornelius, Retired, Chief Justice, Sitting by Assignment.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice MORRISS.

John Wayne Charleston sued a number of Cass County officials, including Jack Carter, the former judge of the Fifth Judicial District Court. Charleston alleged the defendants conspired to violate his civil rights. Carter moved to dismiss the claims against him under the doctrine of judicial immunity and on the basis that Charleston had failed to comply with the requirements of Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The trial court granted Carter's motion, and Charleston appealed.

As a general rule, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). "Interlocutory orders may be appealed only if permitted by statute." Jack B. Anglin Co., Inc. v. Tipps, 842 S.W.2d 266, 272 (Tex. 1992); see generally Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014 (Vernon Supp. 2004 — 2005). "A final judgment is one which disposes of all legal issues between all parties." Tipps, 842 S.W.2d at 272.

The trial court's order disposes of only Charleston's claims against Carter. It does not address, nor does it attempt to address, Charleston's claims against the remaining defendants. Charleston did not move to have his claims against Carter severed, nor did he nonsuit the remaining defendants, either of which actions would have served to convert the trial court's order into a final judgment. The facts and procedural posture of this case do not permit Charleston to prosecute this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Section 51.014 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Braeswood Harbor Partners Prop. Owners v. Harris County Appraisal Dist., 69 S.W.3d 251, 252 (Tex.App. 2002, no pet.) (trial court's judgment did not dispose of all claims; appeal of interlocutory order dismissed for want of jurisdiction).

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.