In the Interest of I. N. A. M., a Child v. the State of Texas
In the Interest of I. N. A. M., a Child v. the State of Texas
Opinion
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS
IN THE INTEREST OF I. N. A.M., § No. 08-23-00062-CV A CHILD § Appeal from the § 65th Judicial District Court § of El Paso County, Texas § (TC# 2022DCM0109)
MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Mya Nailah McClellan, proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal from an order denying her motion to recuse the trial judge (the Order). See generally, TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a, 18b.
On February 13, 2023, acting presiding judge of the 65th Judicial District Court in El Paso County, Judge Susan Larson, heard Appellant’s motion to recuse Judge Yahara L. Gutierrez and denied the same by signed order February 15, 2023. Appellant filed her notice of appeal on February 21, 2023.
On the same day, this Court notified Appellant of our concern that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the Order did not appear to be a final judgment or an appealable interlocutory order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a). On February 22, 2023, Appellant responded, asserting that the Order was an appealable order pursuant to Rule 16.3 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3(c) (pertaining to disqualification or recusal of appellate judges: “An order of recusal is not reviewable, but the denial of a recusal motion is reviewable.”) (emphasis added).
Generally, an appeal from an order may be taken only from a final judgment or order unless an interlocutory appeal is authorized by statute. Industrial Specialists, L.L.C. v. Blanchard Refining Company, L.L.C., 652 S.W.3d 11, 13-14 (Tex. 2022); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 (authorizing appeals from certain interlocutory orders). An order denying a motion to recuse is reviewed “for abuse of discretion on appeal from the final judgment.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 18.a(j)(1)(A). Here, the Order is neither on appeal from a final judgment nor an appeal otherwise authorized by statute. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction and deny all pending motions as moot. TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).
LISA J. SOTO, Justice February 27, 2023 Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, J.J.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.