R. Wayne Johnson v. U.S. Post Master

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedApril 15, 2025
Docket01-24-00886-CV
StatusPublished

This text of R. Wayne Johnson v. U.S. Post Master (R. Wayne Johnson v. U.S. Post Master) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
R. Wayne Johnson v. U.S. Post Master, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

Opinion issued April 15, 2025

In The

Court of Appeals For The

First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00886-CV ——————————— R. WAYNE JOHNSON, Appellant V. U.S. POSTMASTER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 458th District Court Fort Bend County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 22-DCV-292489

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant R. Wayne Johnson, a pro se inmate, incarcerated in the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), appeals from an order of dismissal for want

of prosecution signed on October 17, 2024. On November 12, 2024, appellant filed

a notice of appeal. On January 23, 2025, the Court issued an order advising appellant that his

appeal might be dismissed unless he complied with the requirements of Chapter 14

of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code by February 12, 2025. On February

5, 2025, appellant filed a motion to recuse all nine justices on this Court. On April

1, 2025, the en banc Court issued an order denying the motion to recuse. Because

appellant failed to cure the defects identified in this Court’s January 23, 2025 order,

we dismiss the appeal.

Chapter 14 applies to actions, including appeals and original proceedings,

brought by an inmate in district and county courts, as well as appellate courts, in

which the inmate has filed an affidavit or unsworn declaration of inability to afford

payment of court costs. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 14.002(a). Appellant

filed in the trial court a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, in which he made an

unsworn declaration that he had no property or spouse. When an appellant claims

inability to afford payment of court costs in the trial court, and the trial court did not

overrule this claim, the appellant is not required to pay costs in the trial court or the

appellate court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1(b)(1). Having claimed indigence in the

trial court, Chapter 14 applies. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 14.002(a).

Section 14.004 requires an inmate to file and affidavit or unsworn declaration

listing all previous actions he has filed pro se, whether or not he was an inmate at

the time he filed those actions. See id. § 14.004(a)(1). The affidavit or declaration

2 must identify each action and describe the operative facts for which relief was

sought, list the case name, case number, and the court in which it was filed, identify

the party named, and state the result of the action. See id. § 14.004(a)(2). The

affidavit or declaration must be accompanied by a certified copy of the inmate’s trust

account. See id. § 14.004(c). These documents are also required on appeal because

the information may have changed between the time the inmate filed his original suit

and the filing of his notice of appeal. See Douglas v. Moffett, 418 S.W.3d 336, 339–

40 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.).

Although our order of February 12, 2025 advised appellant that he was

required to file this affidavit or declaration and trust account statement, appellant

failed to file any of those documents, as required by section 14.004. Appellant filed

no response to this Court’s order, which gave appellant notice and the opportunity

to cure the failure to file the affidavit or declaration and the trust account statement.

Therefore, this Court may dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with section

14.004. See Douglas, 418 S.W.3d at 341; Brickley v. Wagner, No. 15-24-00067-

CV, 2025 WL 409084, at *2 (15th Dist. Feb. 6, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.).

We dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c), 43.2(f). Any pending

motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Gunn and Guiney.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ralph O. Douglas v. Marisa A. Moffett and Kyle A. Thornton
418 S.W.3d 336 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
R. Wayne Johnson v. U.S. Post Master, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/r-wayne-johnson-v-us-post-master-texapp-2025.