Everick L. Monk v. Sheriff Jeffery Neal, Judge John L. Tidwell

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 6th District (Texarkana)
• Decided: June 26, 2026
• Docket: 06-26-00070-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-26-00070-CV

EVERICK L. MONK, Appellant

V.

SHERIFF JEFFERY NEAL, JUDGE JOHN L. TIDWELL, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 102nd District Court Bowie County, Texas Trial Court No. 23C0394-102

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Everick L. Monk, filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s April 17, 2026,

order of termination by the Honorable Alfonso Charles, Presiding Judge of the Tenth

Administrative Judicial Region. For the following reasons, we dismiss this appeal for want of

jurisdiction.

Our jurisdiction is constitutional and statutory in nature. See TEX. CONST. art. V, § 6;

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.220 (Supp.). Unless we are given specific authority over an

interlocutory appeal from a particular type of order, we have jurisdiction only over appeals from

final judgments. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195–96 (Tex. 2001), superseded

by statute, Indus. Specialists, LLC v. Blanchard Refin. Co., 652 S.W.3d 11, 14 (Tex. 2022). The

April 17, 2026, order of termination is not a final judgment. Moreover, the Texas Civil Practice

and Remedies Code does not list orders assigning, reassigning, or terminating the assignment of

a judge as appealable interlocutory orders. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(a)

(Supp.); Fox v. Wardy, 224 S.W.3d 307, 309 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, pet. denied) (holding

interlocutory transfer order was unappealable).

By letter dated May 26, 2026, we informed Appellant of this potential defect in our

jurisdiction and afforded him the opportunity to demonstrate proper grounds for our retention of

the appeal. We warned Appellant that if we did not receive an adequate response by June 10,

2026, we would dismiss his appeal. On June 8, 2026, Appellant filed a motion in response to our

letter, but the motion did not establish this Court’s jurisdiction over the appeal.

2 Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Charles van Cleef Justice

Date Submitted: June 25, 2026 Date Decided: June 26, 2026