In re Danny Patrick McCoy

No. 03-25-00882-CV · Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin · January 13, 2026 · No. 03-25-00882-CV

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, denied Danny Patrick McCoy’s petition for writ of mandamus challenging the denial of his motion to recuse the trial court judge. The court held that the recusal motion was properly summarily denied under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a because it was based on the trial judge’s rulings, and that McCoy had an adequate remedy by appeal. The court lifted the temporary stay.

Court
Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin
Writing for the Court
Gisela D. Triana; Kelly; Theofanis
Jurisdiction
Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin
Decision date
January 13, 2026
Docket number
03-25-00882-CV
Procedural posture
Original proceeding in which relator Danny Patrick McCoy sought a writ of mandamus directing the regional presiding judge to vacate an order summarily denying McCoy's motion to recuse the trial judge.
Standard of review
Mandamus relief requires the relator to show a clear abuse of discretion and the absence of an adequate remedy by appeal. An order denying a motion to recuse is reviewed for abuse of discretion on appeal from the final judgment.
Precedential value
Published
Disposition
writ_denied

Topics

writ of certiorariappellate procedureremediescivil procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

Civil procedureAppellate procedureJudicial recusalMandamus

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Judge Trapp was required to hold an oral hearing before denying McCoy's motion to recuse.
  2. Whether McCoy had an adequate remedy by appeal that precluded mandamus relief from the denial of the recusal motion.

Holdings

  1. A motion to recuse that does not comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a may be denied without an oral hearing when the order states the nature of the noncompliance. Because McCoy's motion was based solely on the trial judge's rulings and the order identified that defect, the summary denial was permissible.
  2. Mandamus relief was unavailable because McCoy had an adequate remedy by appeal. Denial of the recusal motion could be reviewed for abuse of discretion on appeal from the final judgment.

Key quotations

A motion to recuse that does not comply with this rule may be denied without an oral hearing (at 1)
Mandamus will not issue where there is “a clear and adequate remedy at law, such as a normal appeal.” (at 2)
An order denying a motion to recuse may be reviewed only for abuse of discretion on appeal from the final judgment. (at 2)

Factual background

McCoy sought recusal of the trial judge based on alleged bias arising from the judge's rulings in the underlying case. After the recusal motion was referred to Judge Trapp, Judge Trapp summarily denied it without an oral hearing because the alleged bias was based solely on judicial rulings.

Procedural history

McCoy filed a motion to recuse the trial court judge, and the motion was timely referred to Judge Robert H. Trapp, the regional presiding judge for the Second Administrative Judicial Region. Judge Trapp denied the motion without an oral hearing. McCoy then petitioned the Third Court of Appeals for mandamus relief; the court lifted its temporary stay and denied the petition.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…