IN RE DOROTHY ALICE PRESLEY AND MURRAY MICHAEL PRESLEY, Relators

Writ of Mandamus Granted, Opinion and Writ issued May 23, 2000
 
S
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-00-00793-CV
............................
IN RE DOROTHY ALICE PRESLEY AND
MURRAY MICHAEL PRESLEY, Relators
.............................................................
Original Proceeding from the 14th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 00-01928-A
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices Morris, Whittington, and Bridges
Opinion By Justice Morris
        In this original proceeding, relators seek a writ of mandamus ordering Judge John McClellan Marshall to rule on relators' motion to recuse him from presiding over their claims. We will issue the writ.
        Relators filed their verified petition for writ of mandamus supported by affidavit. Real- parties-in-interest and Judge Marshall were given the opportunity to respond but chose not to file a substantive response. Accordingly, we have before us the following undisputed facts: Relators are plaintiffs in a lawsuit pending in the 14th Judicial District Court of Dallas County. Judge Marshall is the presiding judge of that court. Relators filed a motion to recuse Judge Marshall on March 24, 2000. To date, Judge Marshall has not acted on the motion to recuse. A few days before relators filed the motion to recuse, Judge Marshall lost his bid for re-election as judge of the 14th Judicial District Court. Prior to election day, Judge Marshall had voluntarily recused himself from suits brought by individuals represented by relators' attorneys. The motion for recusal at issue in this proceeding outlines an extended history of animosity between Judge Marshall and relators' attorneys, including Judge Marshall's allegations of misconduct by relators' attorneys and his claim that the attorneys actively supported Judge Marshall's ultimately successful opponent in the election. Attached to the petition for writ of mandamus is the affidavit of an employee of relators' attorneys. In the affidavit, the employee testifies that Judge Marshall's staff told her Judge Marshall was aware of the motion to recuse, refused to rule on the motion, and was holding it in the case file for his successor to address when she takes office in January 2001.
        Upon notice of the filing of a motion to recuse, a trial judge has only two choices _ he must promptly either voluntarily recuse himself or refer the motion to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district for action. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a (c), (d); Greenberg, Benson, Fisk and Fielder v. Howell, 685 S.W.2d 694, 695 (Tex. App._Dallas 1984, orig. proceeding). The judge does not have the option of doing nothing. Greenberg, 685 S.W.2d at 695; Brosseau v. Ranzau, 911 S.W.2d 890, 892 (Tex. App._Beaumont 1995, orig. proceeding). Thus, it is a clear abuse of discretion for the trial judge to not act on a motion for recusal in one of the two required ways. See Greenberg, 685 S.W.2d at 695; Brosseau, 911 S.W.2d at 892. Our review of the undisputed facts compels us to conclude that Judge Marshall has purposely abused his discretion in refusing to adhere to the mandatory provisions of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a. A telling mark of this abuse is Judge Marshall's directive that the motion be placed in the court's file and held for his successor to address. Assuming, as we must, the accuracy of this uncontroverted evidence, Judge Marshall has directed that relators' motion to recuse him be held in the clerk's file for over nine months until it becomes moot. As an appellate court, we will not permit conduct by a trial judge that imperils the integrity of the judicial process.
        Because such an impermissible and arbitrary halt to trial proceedings denies relators their constitutional right of access to the judicial system, there is no adequate remedy at law, and writ of mandamus is available. See Greenberg, 685 S.W.2d at 695. Accordingly, we GRANT relators' petition for writ of mandamus . We forego our customary courtesy of allowing a trial judge the opportunity to act before issuing a writ of mandamus. We will order Judge John McClellan Marshall to sign an order either recusing himself or referring the motion for recusal to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district. We also will require Judge Marshall to file with this Court a certified copy of his order in compliance with our writ of mandamus on the same day his order issues.
 
 
 
                                                          
                                                          JOSEPH B. MORRIS
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47