Summary
dismissing appeal of denial of motion to appoint attorney for want of jurisdiction
Summary of this case from In re Marriage of HernandezOpinion
NO. 02-15-00153-CV
06-11-2015
DONALD W. READ APPELLANT v. TIMOTHY VERBOSKI APPELLEE
FROM THE 48TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 048-275890-14
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On May 5, 2015, we notified Appellant Donald W. Read, a pro se inmate, of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over his appeal from an "Order Denying Motion to Appoint Attorney Regarding These Civil Matters" because the order does not appear to be a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order. We informed Read that the appeal may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless he or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Read filed a response, but it does not show grounds for continuing the appeal.
Appellate courts have jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments and from specific types of interlocutory orders designated by the legislature as appealable. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (West 2015). A judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it (1) actually disposes of all claims and parties or (2) states with unmistakable clarity that it is a final judgment. Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 200.
The order that Read attempts to appeal is neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).
PER CURIAM PANEL: MEIER, GABRIEL, and SUDDERTH, JJ. DELIVERED: June 11, 2015
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.