Motion Denied; Order filed May 2, 2013 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-13-00071-CV

____________

LIZZIE J. LOVALL, INDIVIDUALLY; KEITH L. SHAW; 

INDIVIDUALLY: KENNETH L. YOUNG; INDIVIDUALLY; KIM L. 

SHAW, INDIVIDUALLY, Appellants

V.

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, INDIVIDUALLY, OFFICIALLY AND 

VICARIOUSLY; MAY WALKER, CONSTABLE, PRECINCT 7, 

INDIVIDUALLY; RUTH MCDUGLE, INDIVIDUALLY; DARLA 

TURNER, INDIVIDUALLY; JOHN K. GEORGE, OFFICIALLY, 

INDIVIDUALLY; GOW-MING CHAO, INDIVIDUALLY; ET AL, 

Appellees

On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-23410

ORDER
On April 11, 2013, appellants filed a motion seeking recusal of a panel of

justices on this court. In the motion, appellants 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 other 

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 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).

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 Thompson 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 set 
out 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 Justices Frost and Busby, 

then deliberated and decided the motion to recuse with respect to each challenged 

justice by a vote of the remaining 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 justices as to each 

challenged justice, and finding no basis for recusal, the motion to recuse and 

amended motion to recuse are DENIED, with Justices 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).