Opinion issued May 23, 2019
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-19-00271-CV
———————————
IN THE INTEREST OF T.H., A Child
On Appeal from the 415th District Court
Parker County, Texas1
Trial Court Case No. CV18-1783
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, R.S.H., incarcerated and proceeding pro se, filed a notice of appeal
from the trial court’s February 8, 2019 order in a suit affecting the parent-child
1
The Texas Supreme Court transferred this appeal from the Second Court of
Appeals to this Court pursuant to its docket equalization powers. See TEX. GOV’T
CODE ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013); Misc. Docket No. 19-9022 (Tex. Mar. 26,
2019). We are unaware of any conflict between the precedent of the Second Court
of Appeals and that of this Court on any relevant issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
relationship in this paternity and child support case. Appellant has filed several pro
se motions in this Court. However, the district clerk filed a special clerk’s record
attaching the trial court’s April 12, 2019 order granting the motion for new trial. We
dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
We are authorized by statute to consider an appeal from a “final order”
rendered under Title 5 of the Family Code. See TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 109.002(b)
(West 2014); see, e.g., Brejon v. Johnson, 314 S.W.3d 26, 33 (Tex. App.—Houston
[1st Dist.] 2009, no pet.). However, when the trial court grants a motion for new
trial, the case is reinstated on the trial court’s docket and will proceed to trial as
though no trial had been previously conducted. Wilkins v. Methodist Health Care
Sys., 160 S.W.3d 559, 563 (Tex. 2005). The granting of a new trial renders the
appeal moot, and this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. See Galvan v. Harris
Cty., No. 01-09-00884-CV, 2011 WL 345677, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
Jan. 31, 2011, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (dismissing appeal as moot after trial
court signed order granting new trial).
On May 2, 2019, the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that this appeal was
subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless he timely responded within ten
days of that notice and showed how this Court had jurisdiction over this appeal. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a), (c). Appellant filed six pro se motions in this Court,
including motions to recuse the Office of the Attorney General and for a paternity
2
test. He timely filed a pro se response attaching the order granting the motion for
new trial and requesting, among other things, a counterclaim of $3 million against
the Office of the Attorney General. However, appellant’s response was inadequate
to show how this Court still has jurisdiction over this appeal.
Accordingly, because the trial court signed an order granting a new trial after
the notice of appeal was filed, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See
TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f). We dismiss all pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Hightower.
3