Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, 2008

in Re John Benjamin Clopton, Jr. and Barbara Ann Clopton

in Re John Benjamin Clopton, Jr. and Barbara Ann Clopton
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas · Decided September 3, 2008

in Re John Benjamin Clopton, Jr. and Barbara Ann Clopton

Opinion

 

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

 

 


No. 10-08-00269-CV

 

In re John Benjamin Clopton, Jr.

and Barbara Ann Clopton

 

 


Original Proceeding

 

 

MEMORANDUM  Opinion

 

The petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot because the Respondent issued an August 13, 2008 order requesting the assignment of a special judge to preside in the underlying case, which is the relief sought in the mandamus petition.

 

                                                                                    BILL VANCE

                                                                                    Justice

 

Before Chief Justice Gray,

            Justice Vance, and

            Justice Reyna

Petition dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed September 3, 2008

[OT06]

   

MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                                                                                                    

      Pugh, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division, brought suit against the Department, several state employees, and Judge Philip Zeigler for alleged civil rights violations. The court dismissed Judge Zeigler as a defendant, but the suit against the remaining defendants is still pending. Pugh attempts to appeal from the court’s partial dismissal order. Pugh is also attempting appeal of a motion for recusal which was filed in the trial court and denied by the sitting judge.

      Except for the types of appealable interlocutory orders enumerated in section 51.014 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, the appellate jurisdiction of this court extends only to final judgments. City of Houston v. Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d 810, 811 (Tex. 1993); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014 (Vernon 1999). In order to be “final,” a judgment must dispose of all parties to the case and all issues in dispute. North East Independent School Dist. v. Aldridge, 400 S.W2d 893, 895 (Tex. 1966). Neither of the orders complained of in this appeal are final. This Court has no jurisdiction over non-appealable interlocutory orders. See Hood v. Amarillo Nat’l Bank, 815 S.W.2d 545, 547 (Tex. 1991). This appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.


                                                                               PER CURIAM


Before Justice Vance,

      Justice Gray, and

      Chief Justice McDonald (Retired)

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Opinion delivered and filed March 1, 2000

Do not publish

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.