Luis Lagaite, Jr. v. Lannete K. Linthicum

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 18, 2008
• Docket: 09-08-00216-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-08-216 CV

_____________________

LUIS LAGAITE, JR., Appellant

V.

LANNETE K. LINTHICUM, ET AL, Appellees

On Appeal from the 60th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Court No. B-180,530

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Luis Lagaite, Jr., an inmate, appeals the trial court's order dismissing his pro se petition. The trial court determined that Lagaite failed to comply with Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which applies to inmates proceeding in forma pauperis. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.001-.014 (Vernon 2002). The trial court dismissed all of Lagaite's claims. Because we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Lagaite's claims, we affirm the order.

Lagaite sued Lannete Linthicum, Richard Labelle, Rizalino Reyes, and Daniel Gideon, all of whom were medical professionals employed by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Lagaite alleged they violated his civil rights by failing to provide him with adequate medical care while incarcerated. Gideon and Reyes filed an answer and motion to dismiss. The remaining defendants never answered, but the record does not indicate they were served. Gideon and Reyes filed their motion to dismiss on November 28, 2007. In their motion, they asserted that Lagaite's suit should be dismissed because of his failure to comply with sections 14.004(a)(2) and 14.004(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The motion stated that Lagaite had filed pro se at least four other cases which he failed to list on the affidavit of previous filings attached to his petition. On December 7, 2007, Lagaite filed a motion to amend his affidavit of previous filings, along with an amended affidavit of previous filings. The trial court conducted a hearing on April 4, 2008. On April 14, 2008, the trial court dismissed Lagaite's claims as frivolous pursuant to Chapter Fourteen of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

When, as here, the trial court's order dismissing an indigent inmate's claims does not state the grounds on which the trial court granted the dismissal, the inmate must show on appeal that each of the grounds alleged in the motion to dismiss is insufficient to support the trial court's order. Harrison v. Tex. Dep't of Crim. Justice-Inst'l Div., 164 S.W.3d 871, 875 (Tex. App.-- Corpus Christi 2005, no pet.). We reverse a trial court's decision to dismiss an indigent inmate's Chapter Fourteen lawsuit as frivolous or malicious only if the trial court abused its discretion. See Moore v. Zeller, 153 S.W.3d 262, 263 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2004, pet. denied); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003(a)(2). To establish an abuse of discretion, an appellant must show the trial court acted arbitrarily or unreasonably in light of the circumstances. Jackson v. Tex. Dep't of Crim. Justice-Inst'l Div., 28 S.W.3d 811, 813 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2000, pet. denied).

When an inmate files suit in a district, county, justice of the peace, or small claims court, and also files an affidavit or unsworn declaration of inability to pay costs, Chapter Fourteen ("Inmate Litigation") of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code applies. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.002. Section 14.004 requires the inmate to file a separate affidavit or declaration:

(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

(2) describing each suit that was previously brought by:

(A) stating the operative facts for which relief was sought;

(B) listing the case name, cause number, and the court in which the suit was brought;

(C) identifying each party named in the suit; and

(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(a). If the affidavit or unsworn declaration states a previous suit was dismissed as frivolous or malicious, the affidavit or unsworn declaration must provide the date of the final order affirming the dismissal. Id. § 14.004(b). When an inmate's affidavit provides insufficient information regarding previous filings because it does not meet the requirements set forth in Chapter Fourteen, the trial court is entitled to assume the present suit is substantially similar to previous claims and is frivolous. Hall v. Treon, 39 S.W.3d 722, 724 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2001, no pet.); Clark v. J.W. Estelle Unit, 23 S.W.3d 420, 422 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied).

In four "issues," Lagaite makes several arguments repetitively. Lagaite argues that (1) section 14.004 violates the Texas Constitution's Open Courts Provision; (2) Chapter Fourteen violates the Texas Constitution's Equal Protection Clause; (3) the trial court erred in dismissing his case without addressing the merits of his claim;(4) he was not allowed to amend his complaint prior to the trial court's order of dismissal; (5) the trial court failed to rule on his pending motions prior to the dismissal order; and (6) the trial court erred in dismissing his claims when the defendants did not file an affidavit with their motion to dismiss.

Section 14.004 does not violate the Open Courts Provision of the Texas Constitution. In a prior unrelated appeal by Lagaite, this Court rejected Lagaite's argument:

The Open Courts Provision provides, "All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law." Tex. Const. art. I, § 13. In analyzing an open courts challenge, courts must determine (1) if the litigant has a cognizable common law cause of action that is being restricted, and (2) if so, whether "'the restriction is unreasonable or arbitrary when balanced against the purpose and basis of the statute.'" Thomas v. Bush, 23 S.W.3d 215, 218 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2000, pet. denied) (quoting Sax v. Votteler, 648 S.W.2d 661, 666, 26 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 316 (Tex. 1983)). The restrictions are not unreasonable or arbitrary when balanced against the underlying purposes of the statute. See id. at 219 (statute controls flood of frivolous lawsuits filed by prison inmates).

Lagaite v. Smith, No. 09-06-350-CV, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 3178, at **7-8 (Tex. App.--Beaumont, Apr. 26, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.). Chapter Fourteen does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Lagaite presented a similar equal protection argument in his prior unrelated appeal, and this Court overruled his issue:

To assert an equal protection claim, Lagaite must establish "(1) that he was treated differently than other similarly-situated parties; and (2) he was treated differently without a reasonable basis." Sanders v. Palunsky, 36 S.W.3d 222, 225 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.). The provisions of Chapter 14 apply to all inmate suits in which an affidavit or unsworn declaration of inability to pay costs is filed, and all indigent inmates must comply with the special filing and time limit requirements. Id. Lagaite has not shown that he has been treated differently from other similarly-situated inmates.

Lagaite, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 3178, at **6-7. Here, Lagaite again fails to demonstrate he has been treated differently from other similarly-situated inmates. Of course, frivolous lawsuits are impermissible regardless of who files them, and various laws sanction frivolous filings. Although this statute specifically applies to inmates, there is a reasonable basis for the statute. The statute was "designed to control the flood of frivolous lawsuits being filed in the courts of this state by prison inmates, consuming valuable judicial resources with little offsetting benefit." Hickson v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397, 399 (Tex. App.--Waco 1996, no writ).

Lagaite argues the trial court erred in dismissing his case without addressing the merits of his claim. Dismissals for failure to comply with the rules governing the filing of informa pauperis suits are not rulings on the merits. Light v. Womack, 113 S.W.3d 872, 874 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2003, no pet.). By dismissing a claim without prejudice, a court allows the inmate an opportunity to re-file and comply with the requirements of Texas' inmate litigation laws. The order of dismissal here does not state whether the case was dismissed with or without prejudice. It is therefore presumed the case was dismissed without prejudice. See Nawas v. R & S Vending, 920 S.W.2d 734, 736 n.1 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ).

As for Lagaite's argument that he was not allowed to amend his complaint, the amended affidavit of previous filings he filed subsequent to the hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss did not meet the requirements of section 14.004(a)(2) because it, like the first affidavit of previous filings he filed with his petition, did not state the operative facts for which relief was sought for each suit Lagaite previously filed. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.004(a)(2)(A); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.004(b) (requiring date of final order "affirming the dismissal."). To the extent Lagaite is arguing the trial court should have, after the hearing, allowed him to amend the affidavit of previous filings again before dismissing his suit, there is no absolute requirement in these circumstances that the trial court permit continuing amendments before dismissing an inmate's suit without prejudice.

Lagaite maintains that the trial court erred in dismissing his suit "[without] ever ruling on pending motions, motion for declaratory judgment, [and] motion to amend complaint affidavit in support of previous lawsuits." The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Lagaite's suit as frivolous, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not ruling on Lagaite's pending motions in the frivolous litigation. See Lagaite v. Livingston, No. 03-07-00067, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 7478, at **5-6 (Tex. App.--Austin, Aug. 27, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.); Garrett v. Nunn, No. 07-06-0428-CV, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 8674, at **8-9 (Tex. App.--Amarillo Oct. 31, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.); Nabelek v. District Attorney of Harris County, No. 14-03-00965-CV, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 7389, at **23-24 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] Sep. 8, 2005, pet. denied).

Last, Lagaite argues the trial court erred in dismissing his claims because the defendants did not attach an affidavit to their motion to dismiss. Chapter Fourteen does not require the defendants to attach an affidavit to their motion to dismiss.

Lagaite's four issues are overruled. We affirm the trial court's order dismissing Lagaite's claims.

AFFIRMED.

___________________________

DAVID GAULTNEY

Justice

Submitted on December 4, 2008

Opinion Delivered December 18, 2008

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Kreger, JJ.