×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Dismissal for Texas Prisoner's Failure to State Facts of Prior Suits
A Texas state court of appeals has held that a prisoner's lawsuit may be dismissed as frivolous because the prisoner failed to list the operative facts of his previous lawsuits, identify the parties involved, and state whether the suit was dismissed as being frivolous.
Gregory Peck Samuels, a Texas state prisoner, filed suit in state court alleging that two guards improperly confiscated 11 postage stamps. In his petition, Samuels listed two prior lawsuits under his declaration of previous filings. For one of the two suits, Samuels did not list the operative facts, name the parties involved, or state whether the suit had been dismissed as frivolous.
In 1995, as apart of the nationwide legislative suppression of prisoner litigation, Texas passed its own version of the PLRA, requiring, among other things, indigent prisoners submit an affidavit detailing all previous pro se litigation by describing the type of suit, the operative facts of the suit, the cause number and court in which the suit was brought, identifying the parties to the suit, and stating whether the suit was dismissed as being frivolous or malicious. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, § 14.004. Other Sections of Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code allow the trial court to dismiss a petition for various reasons, including the filing of a false affidavit of previous filings; however, no section specifically authorizes dismissal for the filing of an incomplete affidavit.
The defendants moved for summary judgment and alleged that the court should dismiss the suit for failure to comply with the affidavit of previous filings requirement. The trial cow denied the motion for summary judgment, but dismissed the suit with prejudice on its own motion for failure to comply with the affidavit of previous filings requirement. Samuels appealed.
The Chapter 14 dismissal of a prisoner's suit is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The court of appeals held that the purpose of the affidavit of previous filings requirement was to allow the trial court to determine whether the same issues involving the same defendants had previously been addressed by another court. In failing to provide the information required by section 14.004(#2), Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Samuels thwarted the purpose of the statute. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the suit with prejudice. See: Samuels v. Strain, 11 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. App: Houston [1st Dist.) 2000).
Gregory Peck Samuels, a Texas state prisoner, filed suit in state court alleging that two guards improperly confiscated 11 postage stamps. In his petition, Samuels listed two prior lawsuits under his declaration of previous filings. For one of the two suits, Samuels did not list the operative facts, name the parties involved, or state whether the suit had been dismissed as frivolous.
In 1995, as apart of the nationwide legislative suppression of prisoner litigation, Texas passed its own version of the PLRA, requiring, among other things, indigent prisoners submit an affidavit detailing all previous pro se litigation by describing the type of suit, the operative facts of the suit, the cause number and court in which the suit was brought, identifying the parties to the suit, and stating whether the suit was dismissed as being frivolous or malicious. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, § 14.004. Other Sections of Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code allow the trial court to dismiss a petition for various reasons, including the filing of a false affidavit of previous filings; however, no section specifically authorizes dismissal for the filing of an incomplete affidavit.
The defendants moved for summary judgment and alleged that the court should dismiss the suit for failure to comply with the affidavit of previous filings requirement. The trial cow denied the motion for summary judgment, but dismissed the suit with prejudice on its own motion for failure to comply with the affidavit of previous filings requirement. Samuels appealed.
The Chapter 14 dismissal of a prisoner's suit is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The court of appeals held that the purpose of the affidavit of previous filings requirement was to allow the trial court to determine whether the same issues involving the same defendants had previously been addressed by another court. In failing to provide the information required by section 14.004(#2), Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Samuels thwarted the purpose of the statute. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed the suit with prejudice. See: Samuels v. Strain, 11 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. App: Houston [1st Dist.) 2000).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Samuels v. Strain
| Year | 2000 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 11 S.W.3d 404 (Tex. App-Houston 1st Dist.(2000) |
| Level | State Court of Appeals |
Samuels v. Strain, 11 S.W.3d 404 (Tex.App. Dist.1 01/13/2000)
[1] Texas Court of Appeals
[2] No. 01-98-01360-CV
[3] 11 S.W.3d 404, 2000
[4] January 13, 2000
[5] GREGORY PECK SAMUELS, APPELLANT
V.
JERRY STRAIN AND CHERYL KELLEY, APPELLEES
[6] On Appeal from the 12th District Court Walker County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 19928
[7] Panel consists of Justices Mirabal, Nuchia, and Price. *fn2
[8] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sam Nuchia Justice
[9] OPINION
[10] Appellant, Gregory Peck Samuels, appeals a judgment dismissing his case as frivolous. We affirm.
[11] BACKGROUND
[12] Appellant, a prison inmate, alleged that on March 27, 1997, prison guards, Jerry Strain and Cheryl Kelley, committed theft and gross negligence and violated prison internal policy, denying him access to the courts and violating his freedom of speech, when they confiscated 11 United States postage stamps from his cell during a search. Appellant's grievance and administrative appeal were both denied. Appellant sued for damages and other relief.
[13] Appellant moved for summary judgment. Appellees moved for summary judgment and responded to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment alleging that the trial court should dismiss the suit as frivolous because appellant did not comply with the requirements of Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Specifically, appellees alleged that appellant did not list the operative facts of his prior civil suit H-96-2744, identify the parties involved, or state whether that suit was dismissed as frivolous. The court denied appellant's motion for summary judgment, granted appellees' motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the case, with prejudice, as frivolous. The court signed a supplemental order stating the court was granting appellees' motion to dismiss with prejudice as frivolous pursuant to sections 14.003 and 14.005 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. *fn1
[14] DISCUSSION
[15] Appellant contends (1) he complied with sections 14.004 and 14.005 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code; (2) he did file his claim before the 31st day after the date he received the written decision from the grievance system; and (3) he did not timely receive defendants' motion for summary judgment under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 166a(c).
[16] Appellees assert the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant's suit for failure to comply with Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
[17] In his original petition, appellant listed two prior civil suits under "Declaration of Previous Filing": H-96-1941 and H-96-2744. Appellant described suit H-96-1941 as a suit involving retaliation, harassment, and a false disciplinary charge for access to the court grievance system. Appellant listed the defendant in H-96-1941 as D. Broussard and stated the suit was dismissed as frivolous. With regard to suit H-96-2744, appellant did not list the operative facts, identify the parties or list whether case was dismissed as frivolous.
[18] Section 14.003 provides that a trial court may dismiss a claim if the court finds the claim is frivolous or malicious. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003 (a)(2) (Vernon Supp. 1999). In determining whether a claim is frivolous or malicious, the court may consider, among other things, whether the claim is "substantially similar" to a previous claim filed by the inmate because the claim arises from the same operative facts. Id. § 14.003(b)(4).
[19] In making its determination under section 14.003, the court may also take into consideration the requirements imposed by section 14.004, which provides:
[20] (a) An inmate who files an affidavit or unsworn declaration of inability to pay costs shall file a separate affidavit or declaration:
[21] (1) identifying each suit, other than a suit under the Family Code, previously brought by the person and in which the person was not represented by an attorney, without regard to whether the person was an inmate at the time the suit was brought; and
[22] (2) describing each suit that was previously brought by:
[23] (A) stating the operative facts for which relief was sought;
[24] (B) listing the case name, cause number, and the court in which the suit was brought;
[25] (C) identifying each party named in the suit;
[26] and
[27] (D) stating the result of the suit, including whether the suit was dismissed as frivolous or malicious under Section 13.001 or Section 14.003 or otherwise. Id. § 14.004.
[28] We review a trial court's dismissal of an inmate's claim pursuant to section 14.003(a) under an abuse of discretion standard. See Thomas v. Wichita General Hosp., 952 S.W.2d 936, 939 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1997, writ denied). A court abuses its discretion if it acts without reference to guiding rules or principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985).
[29] In Bell v. TDCJ-ID, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of an inmate's suit because his affidavit did not meet the requirements of section 14.004. 962 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no writ). Bell did not list the facts or the identity of the parties in four previous suits. Id. The court found that, without this required information, the trial court was unable to consider whether the current claim was substantially similar to a previous claim. Id. The trial court was entitled to assume the suit was substantially similar to one previously filed by Bell and did not abuse its discretion by dismissing it as frivolous. Id.
[30] Here, the trial court did not give the reason for which it found the suit to be frivolous. Because appellant did not comply with the mandatory requirements of section 14.004(a)(2) with regard to suit H-96- 2744, the trial court could have properly assumed this suit was "substantially similar" to the previous suit and, therefore, frivolous. We therefore find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the suit as frivolous.
[31] Appellant also argues that he did not timely receive appellees' summary judgment motion. Appellant was present at the October 30, 1998 hearing on appellees' motion for summary judgment and did not object, then or ever to lack of notice. Therefore, he has waived the complaint. White v. Wah, 789 S.W.2d 312, 319 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ).
[32] Because we find the trial court did not err in dismissing appellant's suit as frivolous under section 14.004(a)(2), we need not address the timeliness of appellant's claim.
[33] We overrule appellant's sole point of error.
[34] We affirm the judgment.
[35] Publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[36] *fn1 We find no motion to dismiss in the record and conclude it was based on appellee's summary judgment motion.
[37] *fn2 The Honorable Frank C. Price, former Justice, Court of Appeals, First District of Texas at Houston, participating by assignment.
[1] Texas Court of Appeals
[2] No. 01-98-01360-CV
[3] 11 S.W.3d 404, 2000
[4] January 13, 2000
[5] GREGORY PECK SAMUELS, APPELLANT
V.
JERRY STRAIN AND CHERYL KELLEY, APPELLEES
[6] On Appeal from the 12th District Court Walker County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 19928
[7] Panel consists of Justices Mirabal, Nuchia, and Price. *fn2
[8] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sam Nuchia Justice
[9] OPINION
[10] Appellant, Gregory Peck Samuels, appeals a judgment dismissing his case as frivolous. We affirm.
[11] BACKGROUND
[12] Appellant, a prison inmate, alleged that on March 27, 1997, prison guards, Jerry Strain and Cheryl Kelley, committed theft and gross negligence and violated prison internal policy, denying him access to the courts and violating his freedom of speech, when they confiscated 11 United States postage stamps from his cell during a search. Appellant's grievance and administrative appeal were both denied. Appellant sued for damages and other relief.
[13] Appellant moved for summary judgment. Appellees moved for summary judgment and responded to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment alleging that the trial court should dismiss the suit as frivolous because appellant did not comply with the requirements of Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Specifically, appellees alleged that appellant did not list the operative facts of his prior civil suit H-96-2744, identify the parties involved, or state whether that suit was dismissed as frivolous. The court denied appellant's motion for summary judgment, granted appellees' motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the case, with prejudice, as frivolous. The court signed a supplemental order stating the court was granting appellees' motion to dismiss with prejudice as frivolous pursuant to sections 14.003 and 14.005 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. *fn1
[14] DISCUSSION
[15] Appellant contends (1) he complied with sections 14.004 and 14.005 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code; (2) he did file his claim before the 31st day after the date he received the written decision from the grievance system; and (3) he did not timely receive defendants' motion for summary judgment under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 166a(c).
[16] Appellees assert the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant's suit for failure to comply with Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
[17] In his original petition, appellant listed two prior civil suits under "Declaration of Previous Filing": H-96-1941 and H-96-2744. Appellant described suit H-96-1941 as a suit involving retaliation, harassment, and a false disciplinary charge for access to the court grievance system. Appellant listed the defendant in H-96-1941 as D. Broussard and stated the suit was dismissed as frivolous. With regard to suit H-96-2744, appellant did not list the operative facts, identify the parties or list whether case was dismissed as frivolous.
[18] Section 14.003 provides that a trial court may dismiss a claim if the court finds the claim is frivolous or malicious. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003 (a)(2) (Vernon Supp. 1999). In determining whether a claim is frivolous or malicious, the court may consider, among other things, whether the claim is "substantially similar" to a previous claim filed by the inmate because the claim arises from the same operative facts. Id. § 14.003(b)(4).
[19] In making its determination under section 14.003, the court may also take into consideration the requirements imposed by section 14.004, which provides:
[20] (a) An inmate who files an affidavit or unsworn declaration of inability to pay costs shall file a separate affidavit or declaration:
[21] (1) identifying each suit, other than a suit under the Family Code, previously brought by the person and in which the person was not represented by an attorney, without regard to whether the person was an inmate at the time the suit was brought; and
[22] (2) describing each suit that was previously brought by:
[23] (A) stating the operative facts for which relief was sought;
[24] (B) listing the case name, cause number, and the court in which the suit was brought;
[25] (C) identifying each party named in the suit;
[26] and
[27] (D) stating the result of the suit, including whether the suit was dismissed as frivolous or malicious under Section 13.001 or Section 14.003 or otherwise. Id. § 14.004.
[28] We review a trial court's dismissal of an inmate's claim pursuant to section 14.003(a) under an abuse of discretion standard. See Thomas v. Wichita General Hosp., 952 S.W.2d 936, 939 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1997, writ denied). A court abuses its discretion if it acts without reference to guiding rules or principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985).
[29] In Bell v. TDCJ-ID, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of an inmate's suit because his affidavit did not meet the requirements of section 14.004. 962 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no writ). Bell did not list the facts or the identity of the parties in four previous suits. Id. The court found that, without this required information, the trial court was unable to consider whether the current claim was substantially similar to a previous claim. Id. The trial court was entitled to assume the suit was substantially similar to one previously filed by Bell and did not abuse its discretion by dismissing it as frivolous. Id.
[30] Here, the trial court did not give the reason for which it found the suit to be frivolous. Because appellant did not comply with the mandatory requirements of section 14.004(a)(2) with regard to suit H-96- 2744, the trial court could have properly assumed this suit was "substantially similar" to the previous suit and, therefore, frivolous. We therefore find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the suit as frivolous.
[31] Appellant also argues that he did not timely receive appellees' summary judgment motion. Appellant was present at the October 30, 1998 hearing on appellees' motion for summary judgment and did not object, then or ever to lack of notice. Therefore, he has waived the complaint. White v. Wah, 789 S.W.2d 312, 319 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1990, no writ).
[32] Because we find the trial court did not err in dismissing appellant's suit as frivolous under section 14.004(a)(2), we need not address the timeliness of appellant's claim.
[33] We overrule appellant's sole point of error.
[34] We affirm the judgment.
[35] Publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[36] *fn1 We find no motion to dismiss in the record and conclude it was based on appellee's summary judgment motion.
[37] *fn2 The Honorable Frank C. Price, former Justice, Court of Appeals, First District of Texas at Houston, participating by assignment.