In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-23-00007-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 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 at least two motions to recuse the trial judge. 

One of those motions was denied by the judge assigned to hear it on December 14, 

2022, and another was denied by the judge assigned to hear it on December 28, 2022. 

Shepherd previously filed an appeal in this court of the December 14, 2022 order 

denying her motion to recuse the trial judge. We recently dismissed that appeal for 

want of jurisdiction. See Shepherd v. Helen Painter & Co., No. 02-22-00502-CV, 2023 

WL 308192, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 19, 2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op.)

Shepherd now attempts to appeal the December 28, 2022 order denying her 

motion to recuse the trial judge. On January 10, 2023, we sent Shepherd a letter 

expressing our concern that we do not have jurisdiction over this appeal because it is

not from a final judgment on appeal in our court. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a(j)(1)(A)
3

(“An order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only for abuse of discretion 

on appeal from the final 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 on or before January 20, 2023, showing 

grounds for continuing the appeal, we would dismiss it. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 

44.3. We have received no response. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of 

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

/s/ Dana Womack

Dana Womack

Justice

Delivered: February 23, 2023

1We note that on December 27, 2022, the Amarillo Court of Appeals reinstated 

Shepherd’s appeal from the final judgment. We also note that on January 27, 2023, 

Shepherd filed an amended notice of appeal with the Amarillo Court of Appeals in 

which she stated that she desired to appeal both the December 14, 2022 order

denying her recusal motion and the December 28, 2022 order denying her recusal 

motion through that appeal.