## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

a t Fort W orth

___________________________ No. 02

- 22

- 00502

- CV

______________________ _____

On Appeal from the 348th District Court Tarrant County, T exas Trial Court No. 348

- 295290

- 17

Before Womack, Wallach, and Wa lker, JJ

. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack 

### J ANA 

### S HEPHERD 

### , Appellant

V



### . H ELEN 

### P AINTER 

### & C O 

### ., C ATHERINE 

### T AYLOR 

### , A MY 

### D EFOREST 

### , Y OUNGER 

### R

ANCH 

### , LLC , S COTT 

### R EAL 

### E STATE 

### , AND 

### S HILA 

### M ANLEY 

### ,

Appellees2 MEM ORANDUM OPINION In a previous a ppeal involving these parties , Appellant Jana Shepher d, proceeding pro se, appe aled from a final judgment

. That appeal was later transf erred

t o the Amarillo Court of Appeals pursuant to an orde r of the Texas Supreme Court

. Transfer of Cases from Courts of Appeals , Misc. Doc k et No. 22

- 9083 (Tex. Sept. 27, 2022)

. While that appeal was p ending, a dispu te aros e r egarding Shep herd ’ s claim of indigency

. O n Nove mber 15, 2022, the Amarillo Cou rt of Appeals abated th e appeal
and remanded the case to t he trial court to conduct a hearing to determine Shep her d ’ s indigency status

. Shepherd v. Hel en Painter & Co

. , No. 07

- 22

- 0 0314

- CV, 2022 WL 16950283, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo Nov. 1 5, 2022, order). While on remand, Shepherd filed a motion to recuse the trial judge , and that motion was denied by

a nother j udge assigned to hear the motion. Sheph er d, again proce eding pro s e, has now filed a secon d notice of appeal , this time a ttempt

ing to appeal the order denying her motion to recuse the trial judge

. 1
On Decem ber 20, 2022, we sent Shepherd a letter expressing our concern that we do

no t have jurisdiction over this second ap peal because i t is not from a final judgment on appeal in our court

. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(j) (1)(A) ( “ An order d enying a motion

to recuse m ay be reviewe d only for abuse of discret ion on appeal from the final

1 In her second n otice of appeal, Shep he rd state d that the appeal was “ being taken to the 7th C ourt of Appeals in Amarillo , ” and she li st ed the cause number for the appeal pending in the Amarillo Co urt of Appeals in the case style

. Despite that language, the appeal wa s ultimately filed in our court

.3

judgment. ” ) ; s ee also In re C ommitm ent of Le w

is , 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

- Zollar s, Inc. , 162 S.W.3d 370, 374 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2005, no pe t.) (s ame)

. We informed Shephe r d 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 S he pher d has filed a response , it does not show
grou nds for continuing the appeal. Accordingly, w e dis miss her appeal for want of jurisdiction. 2 See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Tex. R. C iv. P. 18a(j)(1)(A).

/s/ Dana Womack
Dana Womack Just i ce Delivered: January 19, 2023

2 We note that on December 27, 2022, the Amarill o Court of Appeals reinstated Shepher d ’ s appeal from the final judgment. We also note that d uring th e pendency of this appeal, Shep herd sent us a copy of a “ Notice of Appeal on Order Granting Court Reporter ’ s Motion to Pay Court Costs, A bu se of Discretion of Denying Witness f rom Legal Aid ” that was filed in the Amarillo Cou rt of Appeals. Because that notice of appe al was filed in the Am arillo Co urt of Appeals, w e decline to take any action on it

.