Full Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-26-00859-CV In re James Haecker ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM HAYS COUNTY ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Relator James Haecker filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for emergency stay. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1, 52.10(a). Relator complains of the trial court’s sua sponte show cause order entered against him and the September 16, 2026, hearing on the same. We stayed both the trial court’s show cause order and the hearing. In his petition, Relator stated that he filed a motion to recuse or disqualify the Honorable Elaine S. Brown—the trial court judge who issued the sua sponte show cause order and set the September 16 hearing. While the order is not in the mandamus record, 1 this Court takes judicial notice that the Presiding Judge of the Third Administrative Judicial Region assigned the Honorable Linda A. Rodriguez to the case upon the trial court’s referral of Relator’s 1 See In re Lombana, 542 S.W.3d 699, 701 n.1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding) (“Appellate courts may take judicial notice of facts outside the record to determine their jurisdiction.”). recusal/disqualification motion. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a (providing for the assignment of a new trial court judge after a party files a motion to recuse or disqualify). “Mandamus will not issue against a new judge for what a former one did.” In re Gonzales, 391 S.W.3d 251, 251 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, orig. proceeding) (quoting In re Baylor Med. Ctr. at Garland, 280 S.W.3d 227, 228 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding)). Because of this, the Texas Supreme Court has directed courts of appeals to “either deny the petition for mandamus . . . or abate the proceedings pending considering of the challenged order by the new trial judge” after the original trial judge’s recusal following the challenged action. In re Blevins, 480 S.W.3d 542, 544 (Tex. 2013) (orig. proceeding). We conclude the best approach here is to abate. See id. Accordingly, we abate Relator’s mandamus proceeding until December 18, 2026, to allow the new trial court judge to reconsider the matters underlying the trial court’s August 28, 2026, Order to Show Cause and Notice of Sanctions Hearing. Id. at 542. We direct the new trial court judge to “determine whether the challenged order should remain in effect, be modified, or be set aside, and to render its own order accordingly.” 2 Id. The trial court should proceed in accordance with this order and cause its order on reconsideration of the order to be filed with the clerk of this Court no later than December 18, 2026. It is so ordered on November 10, 2026. 2 As in Blevins, the presiding trial court judge “is not limited to considering only evidence on which the order was based,” if necessary. In re Blevins, 480 S.W.3d at 542. Before Justices Triana, Crump, and Ellis Abated Filed: November 10, 2026