Opinion
NO. 01-17-00716-CV
05-15-2018
JENNIFER ANN LARKINS-RUBY, Appellant v. SEALY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., Appellees
On Appeal from the 155th District Court Austin County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 2017V-0103
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jennifer Ann Larkins-Ruby, proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal from an interlocutory order denying her motion to recuse the trial court judge. Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that a final judgment has not issued in the case and an interlocutory appeal of the order is not authorized. Appellant's response failed to demonstrate a basis for our court's jurisdiction over the appeal. We grant appellees' motion and dismiss the appeal.
Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appeals from final judgments. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); N.E. Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if the judgment disposes of all pending parties and claims before the trial court. Aldridge, 400 S.W.2d at 895. The clerk's record filed in this appeal does not show, and appellant has not asserted, that the trial court has signed a final judgment that disposes of all parties and claims before the Court.
An appellate court also has jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an interlocutory order if a statute explicitly provides jurisdiction. Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352-53 (Tex. 1998); see, e.g., TEX. R. CIV. PROC. § 51.014 (authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders). But no statute authorizes an appeal from an interlocutory order denying a motion to recuse. See Rizk v. Gray, No. 01-16-00374-CV, 2016 WL 7104020, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 6, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). To the contrary, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a(j)(1)(A) expressly provides that "[a]n order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only for abuse of discretion on appeal from the final judgment." TEX. R. CIV. PROC. 18a(j)(1)(A); see Rizk, 2016 WL 7104020, at *1 (explaining interlocutory order denying motion to recuse "is appealable only on appeal of the final judgment"). We, thus, lack jurisdiction over appellant's attempted appeal of the order denying her motion to recuse.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dismiss any other pending motion as moot.
PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Brown.