## In the Court of Appeals Secon d Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Wort h

___________________________ No. 02

- 23

- 00007

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 348th D istrict Court Tarrant County, T exas Trial Co urt No. 348

- 295290

- 17
Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, J J. M emorandum 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 ANL EY 

### ,

Appellees2 MEMORANDUM OPINION In a previous a ppeal involving these parties , Appellant Jana Shepher d, proceeding pro se, ap pe aled from a final judgment

. That appeal was later transf erred

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

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

- 9083 (Tex. Sept . 27, 2022)

. While that app eal 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 d etermine Shep her d ’ s ind igency status

. Shephe rd 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 rema nd , Shepher d filed at least two motions to recuse the trial judge.
One of those motions was denied by the judge a ssigned to hear it on December 14,
2022 , and another was den ied by t he judge assigned to hear it on December 28, 20 22

. Sheph er d previ ously filed an appe al in this court of the December 14, 2022 order denying her motion to recuse the trial judge. We recently d ismissed that appeal for

want of jurisdiction. See Sh epherd v. Helen Painter & Co. , No. 02

- 22

- 00502

- CV, 2023
WL 30 8192, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Fort Wor th Jan . 19, 2023, no pet. h. ) (me m. op.) Shepherd now attempts to appeal the December 28, 2022 order denying her motion to recuse the trial judge. On Janua ry 1 0 , 202 3 , we s ent Shepherd a lette r
express ing our concern that we do no t ha ve jurisdiction over this 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)3

( “ An order d enyin g a motion to r ecuse m ay be reviewe d only for abuse of discret ion

on appeal fro m the final 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 b rought from app eal of final judgment) ; Dishner v. Huitt

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

— D allas 2005, no pe t.) (s ame)

. We informed Shephe r d that unless she filed a response on or before January 20, 2023, showing grounds for continuing the app eal, we would d ismiss it. See Tex. R. App. P. 4 2. 3(a) , 44.3. We have received no respo nse. Accordingly, w e dis miss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Tex. R. C iv. P. 18a(j)(1)(A).

/s/ Dan a Womack
D ana Woma ck Justice
Deli vered: February 23, 2023

1 We note tha t on December 27, 20 22, the Amarill o Cou rt of Appeals reinstated Shepher d ’ s appeal from the final judgment. We also note that on January 27 , 2023, Shepherd filed an amended noti ce of appeal with the Amarillo Court of Ap peals in which she stated that she desired to appeal b ot h the December 14, 2022 order denying her recusal motion and the December 2 8, 2022 order denying her recusal motion thro ugh that appeal.