John Anderson White, Iii v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division, Phillip Griffith and Robert L. Flores

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 21, 2005
• Docket: 13-04-00011-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

                             NUMBER 13-04-00011-CV

                         COURT OF APPEALS

                     THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                         CORPUS CHRISTI B EDINBURG

JOHN ANDERSON WHITE, III,                                                         Appellant,

                                                             v.

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

JUSTICE B INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

PHILLIP GRIFFITH, AND ROBERT L. FLORES,                            Appellees.

      On appeal from the 156th District Court of Bee County, Texas.

                       MEMORANDUM OPINION

    Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Rodriguez

                         Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

Appellant, John Anderson White, III, brings this appeal following the dismissal of his case with prejudice as frivolous pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 14.003(a) (Vernon 2002).  In two issues, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing his case.^[1]

As this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts, we will not recite them here except as necessary to advise the parties of our decision and the basic reasons for it.  Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

We review a trial court=s dismissal of an inmate=s claim pursuant to chapter 14 under an abuse of discretion standard.  Thomas v. Knight, 52 S.W.3d 292, 294 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi 2001, pet. denied).  A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles.  Id.  A court may dismiss an inmate=s claim if it finds the claim to be frivolous or malicious.  Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 14.003(a)(2) (Vernon 2002).  A claim is frivolous if it has no basis in law or fact or if it is substantially similar to a previous claim filed by the inmate because the claim arises from the same operative facts.  Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. '' 14.003(b)(2), (4) (Vernon 2002).  The filing requirements of chapter 14 are designed to assist the court in determining whether a lawsuit is frivolous.   Obadele v. Johnson, 60 S.W.3d 345, 348 (Tex. App.BHouston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.).  Accordingly, when an inmate fails to fulfill the requirements of chapter 14, the trial court is entitled to assume the suit is substantially similar to a prior suit and dismiss the cause of action as frivolous.  Id.  (citing Bell v. Texas Dep't Criminal JusticeBInstitutional Div., 962 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Tex. App.BHouston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied)); see also Diles v. Henderson, 76 S.W.3d 807, 810 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi 2002, no pet.).

 Appellant filed an affidavit or unsworn declaration of inability to pay costs.  In a suit brought by an inmate who asserts an inability to pay costs, the inmate must file an affidavit or declaration providing certain information about each previous lawsuit he or she has filed.  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 14.004(a) (Vernon 2002).  Regarding previous filings, appellant filed an affidavit indicating that he had Anever filed a suit in a State o[r] Federal court for personal injury or otherwise seeking damages or monetary awards.@  The record, however, shows that appellant failed to include at least four suits that he had previously filed pro se.  Furthermore, a certified copy of the trust account statement is absent from the record.  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 14.004(c) (Vernon 2002).  Because appellant did not comply with the requirements of chapter 14 of the civil practice and remedies code, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant=s suit.  Appellant=s first and second issues are overruled.

The trial court=s judgment is affirmed.

FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA

Justice

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this

the 21st day of July, 2005.

---

^[1] Appellant does not contend the trial court erred in dismissing his case Awith prejudice;@ thus, we need not address that issue.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1; Diles v. Henderson, 76 S.W.3d 807, 809 (Tex. App.BCorpus Christi 2002, no pet.).