Motion Denied; Order filed May 2 , 2013

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00071

- CV

____________ LIZZIE J. LOVALL, IN DIVIDUALLY; KEITH L. SHAW; INDIVIDUALLY: KENNET H L. YOUNG; INDIVID UALLY; KIM L.

SHAW, INDIVIDUALLY , Appellant s

V. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS , INDIVIDUALLY, OFFI CIALLY AND VICARIOUSLY; MAY WAL KER, CONSTABLE, PREC INCT 7, INDIVIDUALLY; RUTH M CDUGLE, INDIVIDUALLY ; DARLA TURNER, INDIVIDUALLY ; JOHN K. GEORGE, OF FICIALLY, INDIVIDUALLY; GOW

- MING CHAO, INDIVIDUA LLY; ET AL , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2011

- 23410



### ORDEROn A pril 11, 2013 , appellant s filed a motion seeking recusal of a panel of

justices on this court. In the motion, appellant s asserted that the justices deprived appellants of their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection

. Rule 16 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure states that the grounds for recusal are the “same as those provided in the Rules of Civil Procedure.” Tex. R. App. P. 16.2. Rule 18b(2) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure identifies the grounds for recusal. Tex. R. Civ. P. 18b(2); McCullough v. Kitzman , 50 S.W.3d 87, 88 (Tex. App.

—

Waco 2001, pet. denied) (order). It provides, among othe r matters that a judge shall recuse himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned or he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party. Tex. R. Civ. P. 18b(2)(a), (b).

Rule 16.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure prescribes the procedure to be followed for recusal of an appellate justice or judge:

Before any further proceeding in the case, the challenged justice or judge must either remove himself or herself from all participation in the cas e 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).

Pursuant to the procedure set forth in rule 16.3(b), upon the filing of the recusal motion and prior to any further proceedings in this appeal, each of the challenged justices of this court considered the motion in chambers. Id. Justices
Kem Tho mpson Frost, Jeffrey V. Brown, and J. Brett Busby each found no reason to recuse themselves and certified the matter in writing to the remaining members
of the court en banc. See id. This court then followed the accepted procedure setout in rule 16.3(b). See Manges v. Guerra , 673 S.W.2d 180, 185 (Tex. 1984);

McCullough , 50 S.W.3d at 88. The justices, except for Justice s Frost and Busby, then deliberated and decided the motion to recuse with respect to each challenged justice by a vote of the rem aining participating justices en banc. 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); Cannon , 180 S.W.3d at 601.

Having considered the motion to recuse the panel of ju stices as to each challenged justice, and finding no basis for recusal, the motion to recuse and
amended motion to recuse are DENIED , with Justice s Frost and Busby not participating in the en banc proceedings.

PER CURIAM

En Banc. (Frost, J. & Busby, J. not participating in the en banc proceedings).