NUMBERS 13-12-00432-CV & 13-12-00433-CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE JOSE ALFREDO GARCIA
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Jose Alfredo Garcia, pro se, filed a “Motion to Recuse Judge Lopez of
the 404th District Court[,] Cameron County” referencing trial court causes of action
2011-DCL-04511, resulting in our cause number 13-12-00432-CV, and 2011-DCL-
04788, resulting in our cause number 13-12-00433-CV. The pleading filed by relator is
unclear regarding the procedural history of these two cases. Relator does not urge that
he is appealing an adverse ruling or rulings, and the materials filed do not include a final
judgment in either matter. The documents provided by relator do not meet the
1
See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is
not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
requirements for a notice of appeal. See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 25.1(a), (d).
Accordingly, we construe relator’s pleadings as petitions for writ of mandamus. As
stated herein, we deny the petitions.
I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
To be entitled to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus, the relator must
show that the trial court abused its discretion and that there is no adequate remedy by
appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.
proceeding). The relator has the burden of establishing both prerequisites to
mandamus relief, and this burden is a heavy one. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149,
151 (Tex. 2003) (orig. proceeding); see also Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (“Even a pro se applicant for a
writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”).
In addition to other requirements, relator must include a statement of facts
supported by citations to “competent evidence included in the appendix or record,” and
must also provide “a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with
appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record.” See generally TEX.
R. APP. P. 52.3. In this regard, it is clear that relator must furnish an appendix or record
sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id. R. 52.3(k) (specifying the
required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the required contents for the
record).
II. APPLICABLE LAW
Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a, “[a]n order denying a motion to recuse
may be reviewed only for abuse of discretion on appeal from the final judgment,”
2
whereas an order denying a motion to disqualify may be reviewed by mandamus and
may be appealed in accordance with other law.” See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(j)(1)(A), (2).
Although the documents filed by relator reference both recusal and disqualification, the
substance of the motion and the argument in the pleadings are directed at bias and
impartiality, neither of which is a ground for constitutional disqualification. See id.
18b(a). Instead, impartiality, personal bias, and prejudice are grounds for recusal. See
id. 18b(b). Accordingly, relator has an adequate remedy by appeal.
III. CONCLUSION
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petitions for writ of
mandamus and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden
to obtain mandamus relief. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36.
Accordingly, the petitions for writ of mandamus are DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P.
52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Delivered and filed the
10th day of July, 2012.
3