Alfred Lee Stone v. Sgt. Allen Baskin

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: January 19, 2015
• Docket: 12-14-00364-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NO. 12-14-00364-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ALFRED LEE STONE, § APPEAL FROM THE 349TH APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SGT. ALLEN BASKIN, APPELLEE § HOUSTON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM Alfred Lee Stone appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his lawsuit against “Sgt. Allen Baskin.” Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 14 applies to this appeal. We dismiss the appeal as frivolous.

INMATE LITIGATION–CHAPTER 14 Effective January 1, 2012, Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code was amended to apply to an action, including an appeal or an original proceeding, brought by an inmate in a trial court or in an appellate court, in which an affidavit of indigence is also filed. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 14.002 (West Supp. 2014). This means that the requirements of Chapter 14 apply when inmates file an appeal or an original proceeding in an appellate court just as when they file an action in a trial court. See id. Chapter 14 requires an inmate to file an affidavit or declaration “relating to previous filings” in which the inmate must detail all previous actions filed pro se, other than a suit under the Texas Family Code. Id. § 14.004(a) (West Supp. 2014). The affidavit or declaration must be accompanied by a certified copy of his “inmate trust account statement” that “reflect[s] the balance of the account at the time the claim is filed and activity in the account during the six months preceding the date on which the claim is filed.” Id. § 14.004(c) (West Supp. 2014). The filings required under Chapter 14 are “an essential part of the process by which courts review inmate litigation.” Hickson v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397, 399 (Tex. App.–Waco 1996, no writ). If the inmate fails to file the affidavit or declaration with the required information about previous filings or the inmate trust account statement, the trial court can dismiss the action without notice or hearing. See, e.g., Amir–Sharif v. Mason, 243 S.W.3d 854, 857 (Tex. App.– Dallas 2008, no pet.); Thompson v. Rodriguez, 99 S.W.3d 328, 330 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2003, no pet.). Further, when an inmate fails to comply with the requirement for the affidavit or declaration of previous filings, the trial court may assume that the current action is substantially similar to one previously filed by the inmate and thus is frivolous. Bell v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice–Institutional Div., 962 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied). We conclude that this caselaw interpreting the Chapter 14 requirements as they apply to actions filed in trial courts now applies to actions filed in appellate courts. See Douglas v. Turner, 441 S.W.3d 337, 338 (Tex. App.–Waco 2013, no pet.); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 14.002. In this appeal, Stone did not file an affidavit or declaration of previous filings. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 14.004(a), (c). Because the requirements of Chapter 14 now apply to inmate proceedings in the courts of appeals, caselaw permits us to dismiss Stone’s appeal without notice.

DISPOSITION Because Stone did not file an affidavit or declaration of previous filings, we dismiss this appeal as frivolous. See Bell, 62 S.W.2d at 158.

Opinion delivered January 14, 2015. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J. and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)

2 COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JANUARY 14, 2015

ALFRED LEE STONE, Appellant V. SGT. ALLEN BASKIN, Appellee

Appeal from the 349th District Court of Houston County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 14-0076)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed. It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed as frivolous; and that this decision be certified to the court below for observance. By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J. and Hoyle, J.