§ 30.017.Claims Against Certain Judges

The companion to the tertiary recusal provision, addressing the other route to displacing a judge: suing them.

A claim against a district court, statutory probate court, statutory county court, or business court judge that is added to a case pending in the court to which the judge was elected or appointed: must be made under oath; may not be based solely on the rulings in the pending case but must plead specific facts supporting each element in addition to those rulings; and is automatically severed from the case.

The automatic severance is the operative mechanism. A party who sues the judge presiding over their case would otherwise create an obvious conflict and force recusal. Severing the claim by operation of law means it does not disturb the underlying case at all.

The pleading requirements target the tactical claim. Adverse rulings alone are not a claim — specific facts supporting each element must be pleaded on top of them — and the whole must be sworn.

Subsection (b): the clerk assigns a new cause number and the party pays the filing fees. The severed claim becomes a separate lawsuit with its own costs.

Subsection (c): the presiding judge of the administrative region, of the statutory probate courts, or of the business court assigns the severed claim to a different judge, who shall dismiss the claim if it does not satisfy the oath or specific-pleading requirements.

Dismissal is mandatory on that finding, and it is made by a judge with no stake in the matter. The business court references were added in 2025.