Robert Wayne Mitchell v. Bryan Collier in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided February 10, 2025·No. 15-24-00033-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 15-24-00033-cv FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/10/2025 4:23 PM Cause No. 15–24–00033–CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK

In the Court of Appeals 15th COURT FILED IN OF APPEALS

for the Fifteenth Judicial District AUSTIN, TEXAS 2/10/2025 4:23:45 PM

Austin, Texas CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk

Robert Wayne Mitchell, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Bryan Collier in his Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Defendant-Appellee. On Appeal from the 298th District Court of Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC–23–04417

Appellee’s Suggestion of Death

Ken Paxton Vishal V. Iyer* Attorney General of Texas Texas Bar No. 24106134 Assistant Attorney General Brent Webster Law Enforcement Defense First Assistant Attorney General Division Office of the Attorney General Ralph Molina P.O. Box 12548 Deputy First Assistant Attorney General Austin, Texas 78711–2548 p: (512) 463–4451 James Lloyd f: (512) 370–9814 Deputy Attorney General of Civil Litigation e: vishal.iyer@oag.texas.gov

Shanna E. Molinare *Attorney-in-Charge Division Chief Law Enforcement Defense Division

Counsel for Bryan Collier Identity of Parties and Counsel

Plaintiff-Appellant

1. Robert Wayne Mitchell Plaintiff-Appellant

2. Taj A. Warren Texas Bar No. 24060802 325 N. St. Paul St., Ste. 3100 Dallas, Texas 75201 p: (214) 206–1225 f: (214) 206–1226 e: twarren@warrenlawpllc.com

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant

Defendant-Appellee

3. Bryan Collier Defendant-Appellee

4. Vishal V. Iyer Texas Bar No. 24106134 Assistant Attorney General Law Enforcement Defense Division Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711–2548 p: (512) 463–4451 f: (512) 370–9814 e: vishal.iyer@oag.texas.gov

Counsel for Defendant-Appellee

Page i Table of Contents

Identity of Parties and Counsel i

Table of Contents ii

Exhibit List iii

Table of Authorities iv

Appellee’s Suggestion of Death 1

I. Statement of the Case 1
II. Standard of Review 2
A. Suggestion of Death 2
III. Argument 3

A. The appeal should be dismissed as moot because Mitchell died during the appeal period, and this action does not affect Mitchell’s property rights. 3

IV. Prayer 4

Certificate of Conference 6

Certificate of Service 6

Certificate of Compliance 7

Exhibit A: Death of Appellant 8

Page ii Exhibit List

Exhibit Title of Document Pages

A Death of Appellant: 8–13

• Cause of Death Report of Appellant

• Obituary of Appellant

Page iii Table of Authorities

Case Law Pages

Collier v. Mitchell, 2 No. DC–23–04417, 2024 WL 2827610 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 4, 2024, no pet.)

In re J.R.B., 2–3 698 S.W.3d 603 (Tex. App.—Waco 2024, no pet.)

Murphy v. Murphy, 2 21 S.W.3d 797 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.)

Olson v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline, 3–4 901 S.W.2d 520 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1995, no writ)

Pirate’s Lake, Ltd. v. Vestin Realty Mortg. I, Inc., 3 No. 14–08–00085–CV, 2008 WL 3833618 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 12, 2008, no pet.)

Rules

Tex. R. App. P. 7.1(a)(1) 2

Page iv Cause No. 15–24–00033–CV

In the Court of Appeals for the Fifteenth Judicial District Austin, Texas Robert Wayne Mitchell, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Bryan Collier in his Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Defendant-Appellee. On Appeal from the 298th District Court of Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC–23–04417

Appellee’s Suggestion of Death

Defendant-Appellee Bryan Collier (“Collier”) moves to dismiss the appeal as

moot because Plaintiff-Appellant Robert Wayne Mitchell (“Mitchell”) has died

during the appeal period, and this action does not affect Mitchell’s property rights.

I. Statement of the Case

On April 6, 2023, Mitchell filed his original petition. (C.R.6, 12–18). On July

31, 2023, Mitchell moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”); the trial court

granted the motion on August 21, 2023. (C.R.7, 105–06). On August 18, 2023,

Mitchell filed his first amended petition. (C.R.7–8, 87–94). On September 5, 2023,

Mitchell moved for a temporary injunction; the trial court granted the motion on

Page 1 September 26, 2023. (C.R.8–9, 147–49). On September 25, 2023, Collier filed his

original answer and jury demand. (C.R.9, 141–46). On October 10, 2023, Collier

filed a notice of appeal regarding the TRO; the Fifth Court of Appeals vacated the

TRO and dismissed the appeal as moot on June 4, 2024. Collier v. Mitchell, No.

DC–23–04417, 2024 WL 2827610, *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 4, 2024, no pet.);

(C.R.9). On February 12, 2024, Collier filed a plea to the jurisdiction; the trial court

granted the plea on April 25, 2024, and dismissed the case. (C.R.9, 150–452). On

May 24, 2024, Mitchell filed his notice of appeal. (C.R.10, 466–68).

II. Standard of Review
A. Suggestion of Death

“Generally, ‘if a party to a civil case dies after the trial court renders judgment

but before the case has been finally disposed of on appeal, the appeal may be

perfected, and the appellate court will proceed to adjudicate the appeal as if all

parties were alive.’” In re J.R.B., 698 S.W.3d 603, 604 (Tex. App.—Waco 2024, no

pet.) (quoting Tex. R. App. P. 7.1(a)(1)); see also Murphy v. Murphy, 21 S.W.3d

797, 798 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (holding that “case law

under [former] rules 9 and 369a is also applicable to current rule 7”). “However,

Rule 7.1 does not dispense with the requirement of an existing actual controversy

and generally an appeal will be allowed to proceed on the death of a party only if the

judgment affects the parties’ property rights as opposed to purely personal rights.”

Page 2 J.R.B., 698 S.W.3d at 604 (quotation omitted). “A party’s death moots an appeal to

the extent the appellate court’s action on the merits could affect personal rights, but

not to the extent the court’s action on the merits could affect property rights.” Id.

“When there has ceased to be a controversy between the litigating parties due

to events occurring after judgment has been rendered by the trial court, the decision

of an appellate court would be a mere academic exercise and the court may not

decide the appeal.” Olson v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline, 901 S.W.2d 520, 522

(Tex. App.—El Paso 1995, no writ ) (collecting cases). “In that situation, the

appellate court is required to vacate the judgment of the trial court and dismiss the

underlying cause of action.” Pirate’s Lake, Ltd. v. Vestin Realty Mortg. I, Inc., No.

14–08–00085–CV, 2008 WL 3833618, *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug.

12, 2008, no pet.) (collecting cases).

III. Argument

A. The appeal should be dismissed as moot because Mitchell died during the appeal period, and this action does not affect Mitchell’s property rights.

Collier has reason to believe that Mitchell died during the appeal period on

September 18, 2024. (Exh.

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

Robert Wayne Mitchell v. Bryan Collier in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Robert Wayne Mitchell v. Bryan Collier in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (Robert Wayne Mitchell v. Bryan Collier in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Olson v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline
901 S.W.2d 520 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)
Black v. Black
673 S.W.2d 269 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1984)
Murphy v. Murphy
21 S.W.3d 797 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)