Order issued December 19, 2017
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-17-000690-CV
———————————
THOMAS FLORENCE, Appellant
V.
ROBBIE L. GUARNELO, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
Galveston County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 16FD3374
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Currently pending before this Court is appellant’s pro se “Motion for
Recusal,” which seeks to recuse all justices on this Court.
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 16.3 prescribes the procedure to be
followed for recusal of an appellate justice:
Before any further proceeding in the case, the challenged justice or
judge must either remove himself or herself from all participation in
the case or certify the matter to the entire court, which will decide
the motion by a majority of the remaining judges sitting en banc. The
challenged justice or judge must not sit with the remainder of the court
to consider the motion as to him or her.
TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3(b).
When, as in this case, a party challenges all the members of the court, the
motion is decided by the court under the procedures set forth in Rule 16.3. See
id.; see, e.g., Cameron v. Greenhill, 582 S.W.2d 775, 776–77 (Tex. 1979) (denying
motion to disqualify entire Texas Supreme Court); Cogsdil v. Jimmy Fincher Body
Shop, LLC, No. 07-16-00303-CV, 2016 WL 7321788, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo
Dec. 12, 2016, order) (treating recusal motion as addressed to entire Court).
Accordingly, upon the filing of appellant’s recusal motion and prior to any
further proceedings in this appeal, each of the challenged justices of this Court
considered the motion in chambers. See TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3(b); see also Cogsdil,
2016 WL 7321788, at *1; Cannon v. City of Hurst, 180 S.W.3d 600, 601 (Tex.
App.—Fort Worth 2005, order). Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings,
Keyes, Higley, Bland, Massengale, Brown, Lloyd, and Caughey each found no
reason to recuse themselves and certified the matter to the remaining members of
the en banc court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3(b); Cogsdil, 2016 WL 7321788, at *1;
Cannon, 180 S.W.3d at 601. This Court then followed the accepted procedure set
out in Rule 16.3. See TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3(b); Cannon, 180 S.W.3d at 601. The
2
justices deliberated and decided the motion to recuse with respect to each
challenged justice by a vote of the remaining participating justices en banc. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3(b); Cogsdil, 2016 WL 7321788, at *1; Cannon, 180 S.W.3d at
601. No challenged justice sat with the other members of the Court when his or her
challenge was considered. See TEX. R. APP. P. 16.3(b); Manges v. Guerra, 673
S.W.2d 180, 185 (Tex. 1984); Cogsdil, 2016 WL 7321788, at *1; McCullough v.
Kitzman, 50 S.W.3d 87, 88 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, order).
Having considered the motion as to each challenged justice, and finding no
basis for recusal, the motion to recuse is denied with respect to each challenged
justice. See Manges, 673 S.W.2d at 185; McCullough, 50 S.W.3d at 89. The Court
enters the following orders:
ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO CHIEF JUSTICE RADACK
To the extent that appellant’s pro se “Motion for Recusal” requests recusal of
Chief Justice Radack, it is ordered that the motion to recuse is denied.
The Court consists of: Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland, Massengale,
Brown, Lloyd, and Caughey.
ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO JUSTICE JENNINGS
To the extent that appellant’s pro se “Motion for Recusal” requests recusal of
Justice Jennings, it is ordered that the motion to recuse is denied.
3
The Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Keyes, Higley,
Bland, Massengale, Brown, Lloyd, and Caughey.
ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO JUSTICE KEYES
To the extent that appellant’s pro se “Motion for Recusal” requests recusal of
Justice Keyes, it is ordered that the motion to recuse is denied.
The Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Higley,
Bland, Massengale, Brown, Lloyd, and Caughey.
ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO JUSTICE HIGLEY
To the extent that appellant’s pro se “Motion for Recusal” requests recusal of
Justice Higley, it is ordered that the motion to recuse is denied.
The Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes,
Bland, Massengale, Brown, Lloyd, and Caughey.
ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO JUSTICE BLAND
To the extent that appellant’s pro se “Motion for Recusal” requests recusal of
Justice Bland, it is ordered that the motion to recuse is denied.
The Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes,
Higley, Massengale, Brown, Lloyd, and Caughey.
ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO JUSTICE MASSENGALE
To the extent that appellant’s pro se “Motion for Recusal” requests recusal of
Justice Massengale, it is ordered that the motion to recuse is denied.
4
The Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes,
Higley, Bland, Brown, Lloyd, and Caughey.
ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO JUSTICE BROWN
To the extent that appellant’s pro se “Motion for Recusal” requests recusal of
Justice Brown, it is ordered that the motion to recuse is denied.
The Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes,
Higley, Bland, Massengale, Lloyd, and Caughey.
ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO JUSTICE LLOYD
To the extent that appellant’s pro se “Motion for Recusal” requests recusal of
Justice Lloyd, it is ordered that the motion to recuse is denied.
The Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes,
Higley, Bland, Massengale, Brown, and Caughey.
ORDER DENYING MOTION AS TO JUSTICE CAUGHEY
To the extent that appellant’s pro se “Motion for Recusal” requests recusal of
Justice Caughey, it is ordered that the motion to recuse is denied.
The Court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes,
Higley, Bland, Massengale, Brown, and Lloyd.
PER CURIAM
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
5