From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Johnson

Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, Amarillo, Panel B
Nov 2, 2007
Nos. 07-07-0245-CV, 07-07-0431-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 2, 2007)

Opinion

Nos. 07-07-0245-CV, 07-07-0431-CV

November 2, 2007.

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.


ON MOTION FOR RECUSAL


Pending before the Court is the motion brought by relator R. Wayne Johnson to recuse the Court with regard to his writs of mandamus filed in this Court and directed against two district judges.

Relator's motion seeks recusal of this entire Court. We have denied a similar motion filed by relator in the past. In re Johnson, 2004 WL 2331065 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2004, orig. proceeding). Here, relator's stated grounds for the Court's recusal include his statements that the clerk of this Court does not provide case numbers to prisoners; that relator has pending in the Texas Supreme Court a mandamus proceeding directed against this Court; that this Court has failed to comply with the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution; and that this Court has shown bias and prejudice against him, contrary to the justices' oaths of office, the Code of Judicial Conduct and our duty to follow the requirements of the U. S. Constitution rather than contrary procedural rules. The grounds for recusal of an appellate court justice are the same as those provided in the Rules of Civil Procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 16.2; Tex. R. Civ. P. 18b(2). Those grounds include, inter alia, circumstances in which a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned and in which a judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning the subject matter or a party. Tex. R. Civ. P. 18b(2)(a), (b). The procedures governing recusal provide for motions "to recuse a justice or judge before whom the case is pending" and provide for a decision on the motion regarding the "challenged justice or judge." Tex. R. App. P. 16.3(a), (b) (emphasis ours). See McCullough v. Kitzman, 50 S.W.3d 87 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001, pet. denied) (motion to disqualify or recuse "each of the justices" of the court). But see Cadle Co. v. Lobingier, 2003 WL 21525417 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth, July 3, 2003, order). Relator's motion, however, refers to this Court as a whole, his prayer for relief asking "[t]hat court recuse itself. . . ." The motion does not seek the recusal of one or more individual justices of the Court, nor does it assert that grounds exist for the recusal of any individual justice of this Court. Consequently, relator's motion to recuse is denied.

Relator is a Texas prison inmate acting pro se. We presume relator's reference to "case numbers" refers to cause numbers the Court assigns to newly-filed proceedings.

See In re R. Wayne Johnson, No. 07-0603, September 14, 2007 (petition for writ of mandamus denied). Relator's petition was pending in the supreme court when he filed his motion to recuse.


Summaries of

In re Johnson

Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, Amarillo, Panel B
Nov 2, 2007
Nos. 07-07-0245-CV, 07-07-0431-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 2, 2007)
Case details for

In re Johnson

Case Details

Full title:IN RE R. WAYNE JOHNSON, RELATOR

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Seventh District, Amarillo, Panel B

Date published: Nov 2, 2007

Citations

Nos. 07-07-0245-CV, 07-07-0431-CV (Tex. App. Nov. 2, 2007)