In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-22-00502-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 348th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 348-295290-17

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

JANA SHEPHERD, Appellant

V.

HELEN PAINTER & CO., CATHERINE TAYLOR, AMY DEFOREST,

YOUNGER RANCH, LLC, SCOTT REAL ESTATE, AND SHILA MANLEY, 

Appellees
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a previous appeal involving these parties, Appellant Jana Shepherd, 

proceeding pro se, appealed from a final judgment. That appeal was later transferred 

to the Amarillo Court of Appeals pursuant to an order of the Texas Supreme Court. 

Transfer of Cases from Courts of Appeals, Misc. Docket No. 22-9083 (Tex. Sept. 27, 

2022). While that appeal was pending, a dispute arose regarding Shepherd’s claim of 

indigency. On November 15, 2022, the Amarillo Court of Appeals abated the appeal 

and remanded the case to the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine Shepherd’s 

indigency status. Shepherd v. Helen Painter & Co., No. 07-22-00314-CV, 2022 WL 

16950283, at *1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Nov. 15, 2022, order). While on remand, 

Shepherd filed a motion to recuse the trial judge, and that motion was denied by 

another judge assigned to hear the motion. 

Shepherd, again proceeding pro se, has now filed a second notice of appeal, 

this time attempting to appeal the order denying her motion to recuse the trial judge.

1

On December 20, 2022, we sent Shepherd a letter expressing our concern that we do 

not have jurisdiction over this second appeal because it is not from a final judgment 

on appeal in our court. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(j)(1)(A) (“An order denying a motion 

to recuse may be reviewed only for abuse of discretion on appeal from the final 

1

In her second notice of appeal, Shepherd stated that the appeal was “being 

taken to the 7th Court of Appeals in Amarillo,” and she listed the cause number for 

the appeal pending in the Amarillo Court of Appeals in the case style. Despite that 

language, the appeal was ultimately filed in our court.
3

judgment.”); see also In re Commitment of Lewis, 495 S.W.3d 341, 343 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont 2016, pet. denied) (raising challenge to denial of recusal motion in issue 

brought from appeal of final judgment); Dishner v. Huitt-Zollars, Inc., 162 S.W.3d 370, 

374 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.) (same). We informed Shepherd that unless she 

filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, we would dismiss it. See 

Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. While Shepherd has filed a response, it does not show 

grounds for continuing the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss her appeal for want of 

jurisdiction.2 See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(j)(1)(A).

/s/ Dana Womack

Dana Womack

Justice

Delivered: January 19, 2023

2We note that on December 27, 2022, the Amarillo Court of Appeals reinstated 

Shepherd’s appeal from the final judgment. We also note that during the pendency of 

this appeal, Shepherd sent us a copy of a “Notice of Appeal on Order Granting Court 

Reporter’s Motion to Pay Court Costs, Abuse of Discretion of Denying Witness from 

Legal Aid” that was filed in the Amarillo Court of Appeals. Because that notice of 

appeal was filed in the Amarillo Court of Appeals, we decline to take any action on it.