FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
DECEMBER 20, 2006
______________________________A.R.M. (U.S.A.) , INC.,
Appellant
V.
TRACI LINCOLN and LONNIE LINCOLN,
Appellees
_________________________________
FROM THE 99th DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;
NO. 2005-530,432; HONORABLE WILLIAM SOWDER, PRESIDING _______________________________
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Appellant, by and through its attorney, has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss because this court no longer has jurisdiction to hear this appeal. Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2) and dismiss the appeal. Having dismissed the appeal at appellant's request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
than contrary procedural rules. The grounds for recusal of an appellate court justice are the same as those provided in the Rules of Civil Procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 16.2; Tex. R. Civ. P. 18b(2). Those grounds include, inter alia, circumstances in which a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned and in which a judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning the subject matter or a party. Tex. R. Civ. P. 18b(2)(a), (b). The procedures governing recusal provide for motions "to recuse a justice or judge before whom the case is pending" and provide for a decision on the motion regarding the "challenged justice or judge." Tex. R. App. P. 16.3(a), (b) (emphasis ours). See McCullough v. Kitzman, 50 S.W.3d 87 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001, pet. denied) (motion to disqualify or recuse "each of the justices" of the court). But see Cadle Co. v. Lobingier, 2003 WL 21525417 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth, July 3, 2003, order). Relator's motion, however, refers to this Court as a whole, his prayer for relief asking "[t]hat court recuse itself . . . ." The motion does not seek the recusal of one or more individual justices of the Court, nor does it assert that grounds exist for the recusal of any individual justice of this Court. Consequently, relator's motion to recuse is denied.
Per Curiam
1. Relator is a Texas prison inmate acting pro se. We presume relator's reference
to "case numbers" refers to cause numbers the Court assigns to newly-filed proceedings.
2. See In re R. Wayne Johnson, No. 07-0603, September 14, 2007 (petition for writ
of mandamus denied). Relator's petition was pending in the supreme court when he filed
his motion to recuse.