Delford B. Mathews v. Richard A. Trinci, Jr. Kathryn A. Bell Sgt. James Hudson, and Timothy Moffett

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 2, 2008
• Docket: 14-07-00719-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 2, 2008

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed December 2, 2008.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_______________

NO. 14-07-00719-CV

DELFORD B. MATHEWS, Appellant

V.

RICHARD A. TRINCI, JR.; KATHRYN A. BELL; SGT. JAMES HUDSON, AND TIMOTHY MOFFETT, Appellees

On Appeal from the 412th District Court

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 43671

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant, Delford B. Mathews, appeals from the trial court=s dismissal with prejudice of his harassment claim against appellees as agents of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (Athe Department@).  Appellant contends that the trial court erred by (1) failing to state the grounds for dismissal; and (2) dismissing without affording appellant leave to amend his complaint.  We affirm.

Background

Appellant is an inmate housed in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice facility in Angleton, Brazoria County.  Appellant filed three separate grievance forms with the Department under the procedure established by Texas Government Code _ 501.008 (Vernon 2004).  All three grievances related to an incident which took place on July 25, 2006 and the ensuing investigation which followed.  Appellant exhausted his administrative remedies with regard to all three grievances.  Appellant received the written decision from the latest of these grievances on January 4, 2007.

Appellant filed suit in forma pauperis against appellees in Brazoria County District Court on July 19, 2007 asserting claims for emotional distress and other money damages stemming from the alleged harassment of July 25, 2006.  On August 13, 2007, the trial court signed an order dismissing appellant=s case with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action as a matter of law.  Appellant appeals from the trial court=s order.

Analysis

Appellant challenges the trial court=s dismissal order on grounds that (1) it failed to identify the statutory provision on which it relied for dismissal; and (2) dismissal without affording him an opportunity to amend his pleading was improper.  We review dismissal of a cause of action brought by an inmate in forma pauperis for abuse of discretion.  Hickman v. Adams, 35 S.W.3d 120, 123 (Tex. App.BHouston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.).  Abuse of discretion is determined by examining whether the court acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or without reference to any guiding principles.  Id.

I.          Failure to Identify Statutory Ground for Dismissal

A trial court may dismiss an inmate=s claim, either before or after service of process, if the court finds that the claim is Afrivolous or malicious.@  Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. _ 14.003(a)(2) (Vernon 2002).  In determining whether a claim is frivolous or malicious, the court may consider whether the claim Ahas no arguable basis in law or in fact.@  Id. _ 14.003(b)(2) (Vernon 2002).  A trial court shall dismiss a claim if the inmate fails to file the claim before the thirty-first day after the date he or she receives the written decision from the grievance system established under section 501.008 of the Government Code.  Id. _ 14.005(a), (b) (Vernon 2002).

Appellant contends that the trial court was required to specify the statutory ground relied upon in dismissing appellant=s case.  Appellant=s argument relies on a misunderstanding of the applicable law and a misreading of the trial court=s order.  Appellant fails to cite any authority _ nor have we found any _ requiring a trial court to specify which statute, if any, it relied upon in dismissing an inmate=s case brought in forma pauperis.  Furthermore, while the trial court=s order does not cite any particular statute on which it relies, it explicitly says that appellant Afailed to state a cause of action as a matter of law.@  Such language indicates that the trial court determined that appellant=s claim had no arguable basis in law, which is explicitly listed as a viable ground for dismissal of an inmate=s claim as frivolous or malicious under section 14.003 of the Civil Practices and Remedies Code.  See id. _ 14.003(a)(2), (b)(2).

In addition, the trial court was obligated to dismiss appellant=s case under section 14.005 of the Civil Practices and Remedies Code.  See id. _ 14.005(b).  This provision=s language is mandatory and requires a trial court to dismiss an inmate=s claim if he fails to file his petition before the thirty-first day after receiving the written decision from the Department=s grievance system.  Appellant filed his petition on July 19, 2007.  Appellant received written decisions from the Department regarding his three grievances in September 2006, October 2006, and January 2007.  Appellant=s petition was filed well after the deadline had passed, and the trial court therefore was required to dismiss his claim.  See id.; see also Freeman v. Johnson, No. 14-03-00669-CV, 2004 WL 744421, at *1 (Tex. App.BHouston [14th Dist.] Apr. 8, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.).  Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing appellant=s case for failure to state a cause of action as a matter of law.

We overrule appellant=s issue regarding the trial court=s failure to specify statutory grounds for dismissal.

II.        Dismissal With Prejudice

Appellant contends that it was error for the trial court to dismiss his case with prejudice, thus depriving him of the opportunity to amend his pleading.

Dismissal with prejudice constitutes an adjudication on the merits and operates as if the case had been fully tried and decided.  Hickman, 35 S.W.3d at 124.  Orders dismissing cases with prejudice have full res judicata and collateral estoppel effect, barring subsequent litigation of the same causes of action or issues between the same parties.  Id.  Dismissal with prejudice is proper when an inmate=s failure to comply with statutory filing requirements cannot be remedied; otherwise, dismissal should be without prejudice.  See id.

As noted above, appellant failed to timely file his petition with the trial court under the provisions of Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code _ 14.005(b).  This error cannot be remedied by amending the pleading.  As a result, dismissal with prejudice was appropriate in this case.  See Hickman, 35 S.W.3d at 124.

We overrule appellant=s issue regarding the trial court=s dismissal of his claim with prejudice.

Conclusion

The trial court=s dismissal order is affirmed.

/s/        William J. Boyce

Justice

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed December 2, 2008.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Seymore, and Boyce.