Philip Pohl v. J. Chavers

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 15, 2007
• Docket: 09-07-00285-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-07-285 CV

PHILIP POHL, Appellant

V.

J. CHAVERS, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 258th District Court

Polk County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CIV 23642

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Philip Pohl, an inmate, appeals from the trial court's dismissal of his pro se complaint in which he alleged he received improper medical care from prison health care providers. Because we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Pohl's suit without prejudice, we affirm.

Pohl sued four defendants in the 258th District Court of Polk County, Texas. The defendants are: J. Chavers (practice manager), G. Porras (physician), J. Hansen (physician's assistant), and D. Overbeck (nurse practitioner). In addition to his petition, Pohl filed an affidavit of inability to pay court costs.

When, as here, 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 14 ("Inmate Litigation") of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code applies. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.002 (Vernon 2002). In part, section 14.004 requires such inmates 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)(1), (2).

In dismissing Pohl's suit without prejudice, the trial court found that his petition was frivolous. In particular, the court found that Pohl failed to file a separate affidavit or declaration identifying each suit that he previously brought in which he was not represented by any attorney or failed to fully describe each previous suit. See id. On appeal, Pohl concedes that he did not identify all of his previous suits. He contends that he was not trying to deceive the trial court and that he believed he was only required to identify previous civil litigation in Texas state courts.

The trial court has broad discretion to dismiss an inmate's Chapter 14 lawsuit as frivolous or malicious, and we reverse its decision only if the court abused its discretion. Moore v. Zeller, 153 S.W.3d 262, 263 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2004, pet. denied); see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003(a)(2). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts without reference to guiding rules or principles. Clark v. J.W. Estelle Unit, 23 S.W.3d 420, 421 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). If "an inmate does not comply with the affidavit requirements of Section 14.004, the trial court is entitled to assume the suit is substantially similar to one previously filed by the inmate, and therefore, frivolous." Hall v. Treon, 39 S.W.3d 722, 724 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2001, no pet.); see Thomas v. Knight, 52 S.W.3d 292, 295 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied). Further, inmates, even though proceeding pro se, must comply with applicable laws and rules of procedure. Giddens v. Brooks, 92 S.W.3d 878, 880-81 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2002, pet. denied) (inmate's pro se lawsuit against a physician and medical center.)

Because Pohl did not comply with section 14.004 and its requirement to properly identify his suits and describe them, we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his case without prejudice. We affirm the trial court's order.

AFFIRMED.

____________________________

HOLLIS HORTON

Justice

Submitted on October 8, 2007

Opinion Delivered November 15, 2007

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