In Re Tara Thomas v. the State of Texas

Opinion

Opinion issued December 11, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-25-01008-CV ——————————— IN RE TARA MARIE THOMAS, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION Relator, Tara Marie Thomas, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of

mandamus challenging the denial of her motion to recuse the Honorable Sandra

Peake, the presiding judge of the 257th District Court of Harris County, Texas.1

Relator alleged that Susan Brown, the regional presiding judge for the Eleventh

1 The underlying case is In the Interest of B.C.T. and L.K.T., Children, Cause No. 2016-88084, in the 257th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Sandra Peake presiding. Administrative Judicial Region of Texas, abused her discretion by refusing to hold

a hearing on the motion to recuse. Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus requested

that the Court grant her petition and issue a writ of mandamus “directing the

Regional Presiding Judge to vacate the order denying recusal,” to “[o]rder

Respondent Judge Sandra J. Peake recused, or alternatively, remand for a Rule 18a

hearing,” and to “[s]tay all proceedings in Cause No. 2016-88084.”

We conclude that relator has failed to establish she is entitled to mandamus

relief and therefore the Court denies relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See

TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j) (“An order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only

for abuse of discretion on appeal from the final judgment.”); see also TEX. GOV’T

CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b), (c); In re Gonzalez, No. 13-25-00421-CV, 2025 WL

2461675, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Aug. 26, 2025, orig.

proceeding) (mem. op.) (“Our mandamus jurisdiction does not extend to the

presiding regional administrative judge.”); In re Hettler, 110 S.W.3d 152, 154–55

(Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding) (concluding intermediate appellate

courts lack jurisdiction to consider petition for writ of mandamus against regional

presiding judge because “a specific grant of such authority would be required” by

legislature). We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Gunn and Johnson.