Asked whether a judge Husband is suing may keep deciding Husband's divorce, a Second District panel that included Judge Andrea Teves Smith, whom the court has since disclosed is recused in another of Husband's appeals, denied the petition in one sentence seven days after filing, required no response, and said nothing about transferring venue.
Art. I, s. 9 guarantees an impartial judge, and Rule 2.330(e)(2)(C) makes a judge's own interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding a ground for disqualification. Shown that the trial judge is a defendant in the petitioner's lawsuit, the Second District orders a response and rules on that ground, with reasons. It decides the request to transfer venue. A judge recused in one of the petitioner's related cases explains, when asked, why that ground did not reach the others, and the clerk answers when the recusal took effect.
- Feb. 3, 2026: the petition asked for a writ "disqualifying Judge Matthew Felix and all judges of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit from presiding over Case No. 24-DR-001150 and directing a transfer of venue to a neutral circuit". N-078Read them: Petition, Feb. 3, 2026 (link pending redacted copy)
- Feb. 10, 2026: seven days after filing: "Petitioner's petition for writ of prohibition is denied." Judges Villanti, Sleet and Smith concurred. No response was required; the order says nothing about venue or the circuit named as a respondent. N-078Read them: Order, Feb. 10, 2026 (link pending redacted copy)
- July 27 to Oct. 2, 2026: the clerk, for the Chief Judge: "Judge Andrea Teves Smith is recused in case no. 2D2025-0681." Judge Smith, the only Smith on the court's letterhead, sat on this panel and on the April 15, 2026 panel in 2D2025-1936. Asked whether any judge "is recused, or has been recused at any point" in those cases: "no judges are recused in these cases." The recusal date: "confidential and exempt." Oct. 2, 2026: under IOP section 1.7, Husband asked when the recusal took effect, its ground, and whether it was considered here. Unanswered as of Oct. 3, 2026. N-138, N-078When did Judge Smith's recusal in 2D2025-0681 take effect, on what ground, and was that ground considered before she sat on this panel?Read them: Husband's email to the clerk, Oct. 2, 2026 (link pending redacted copy) · Decision, 2D2025-1936, Apr. 15, 2026 (link pending redacted copy)
Judges Villanti, Sleet and Smith (the one-sentence denial). Clerk Mary Elizabeth Kuenzel, answering for Chief Judge Lucas. One petition, one order, one seven-entry docket. Every duty here arises from the Second District's own prohibition jurisdiction over this petition alone; no other card is needed to establish it.
Art. I, s. 9, Fla. Const. and the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee an impartial tribunal: "[N]o man can be a judge in his own case" (In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955)). Art. V, s. 4(b)(3) gives the Second District jurisdiction in prohibition to enforce that guarantee. Court rules govern "practice and procedure" (Art. V, s. 2(a)); the federal guarantee binds "the Judges in every State" over any conflicting state rule (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2). Art. I, s. 24(a) presumes the court's own records open and puts the burden of any exemption on the custodian.
The details are where it lives: full record, receipts, related cards
Asked whether a judge he is suing may keep deciding his divorce, Husband got one sentence: the petition "is denied."
On February 10, 2026 a panel of Villanti, Sleet, and Smith denied the prohibition petition seven days after it was filed, and one day after the fee posted. The order reads: "Petitioner's petition for writ of prohibition is denied." No opinion, no order to show cause, no response ever required. The petition had asked for a writ "disqualifying Judge Matthew Felix and all judges of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit from presiding over Case No. 24-DR-001150 and directing a transfer of venue to a neutral circuit pursuant to Fla. Stat. s. 47.122", and named the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit itself as a respondent. The order does not mention venue, transfer, section 47.122, or the circuit as an entity; its caption lists only the two spouses. Judge Felix remained presiding. The structural question this petition raised has now been put to three courts and answered by none (N-059). [DENIED]
Prohibition exists to stop a judge from presiding where disqualification is required, and the Constitution controls over any rule that would let him stay. The petition put a structural question to the court: may a judge who is a named defendant in Husband's pending suit keep deciding Husband's case. The one-sentence denial names its judges and answers nothing else. It required no response, and it is silent on the second thing the petition asked for, transfer of venue under section 47.122. Judge Felix kept presiding.
the petition asking whether a judge who is a defendant in one case may keep presiding over the related one was denied in a single sentence, seven days after filing and one day after the fee posted, with no response ever required from anyone
- Denial order 2/10/26, 2D2026-0279 docket 001, p.1, and copy at docket 008, Mary Elizabeth Kuenzel clerk certification, served on Hillsborough Clerk, Davis, Felix, Hanson.
- Petition of 2/3/26, 2D2026-0279 docket 007, PDF pp. 4-5, 16, 26-27, verified: prayer at section III, para. 44 and WHEREFORE clause: "remanding with instructions to transfer venue to the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Pasco County, or another neutral venue".
- 2D2026-0279 docket sheet, text layer, seven entries, no order-to-show-cause and no response entry.
- Disqualification ruling this followed: N-069. Structural-conflict spine: N-059.