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

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 Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195–96 (Tex. 2001), superseded by statute, Indus.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

3

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Charles van Cleef

Justice

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