in Re David James
Opinion
Opinion issued August 6, 2020
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
This Court’s jurisdiction to issue mandamus relief is governed by Government Code Section 22.221, which provides that we may issue mandamus relief to enforce our jurisdiction or against the judge of a district, statutory county, statutory probate county, or county court in the court of appeals district. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221(a), (b).
Walker County is no longer in the First Court of Appeals District but is instead in the Tenth Court of Appeals District. See In re McGee, 213 S.W.3d 405, 406 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding); TEX. GOV’T CODE §§ 22.201(b), 22.211. The recusal motion was filed in the 12th District Court in Walker County and the trial judge refused to recuse himself and referred the motion to the Presiding Judge of the Second Administrative District. To the extent relator seeks relief against the trial judge, we lack jurisdiction to issue any writs against a judge presiding in Walker County.
Moreover, the recusal motion was referred to the Honorable Olen Underwood, Presiding Judge of the Second Administrative Judicial Region, who denied it by order signed December 31, 2019. This Court lacks jurisdiction over Judge Underwood because he is not a judge of a district or county court in this Court’s district. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 22.221(b). And this is not a mandamus sought to enforce our jurisdiction. See id. at § 22.221(a). Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider relator’s petition.
We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Any pending motions are also dismissed.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Kelly and Landau. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
in Re David James (in Re David James) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.