In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo ________________________
No. 07-18-00112-CV ________________________
STEVEN BOYD, APPELLANT
V.
COREY DUSTIN JONES AND ROBERT LOVE III, APPELLEES
On Appeal from the 47th District Court Randall County, Texas Trial Court No. 73,319-A; Honorable David L. Gleason, Presiding by Assignment
May 17, 2019
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL, PIRTLE, and PARKER, JJ.
Steven Boyd, an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the trial
court’s Order Dismissing “Due Course of Law Complaint” he filed against Robert Love III
and Corey Dustin Jones. By three issues, he contends (1) the trial court abused its
discretion in dismissing his complaint for failing to appropriately state a cause of action;
and that the trial court erred in (2) finding that his claim’s realistic chance of success was slight, had no arguable basis in law, and that Boyd could not prove facts in support of his
claim; and (3) dismissing his suit because the requested admissions were deemed
admitted. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On January 17, 2018, Boyd sued Love, a Randall County prosecutor, and Jones,
an Amarillo police officer, for allegedly conspiring to deprive him of his due process rights
in a robbery prosecution in trial court cause number 24,143-A. By his “Due Course of
Law Complaint,” Boyd alleged that Jones “fabricated and distributed a false confession
to prosecutors” and that Love “allow[ed] it to go uncorrected.” He claims Appellees’
actions violated Article I, Sections 10 and 19 of the Texas Constitution as well as the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Simultaneously with his complaint, Boyd filed a discovery request pursuant to Rule
190.3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and a request for admissions under Rule
198.1. TEX. R. CIV. P. 190.3, 198.1. Several months later, the trial court dismissed Boyd’s
suit pursuant to section 14.003(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Boyd
now challenges that dismissal.
We further note that, although the clerk’s record contains two “citation” requests
for Appellees, there is nothing to indicate they were ever served. Boyd filed a document
entitled “Tex. R. App. Proc. Rule 2 Motion to Suspend Tex. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 21(A) and
Tex. R. App. Proc. Rule 9.3,” by which he requested suspension of the rules requiring
2 service of process.1 Rule 2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure allows this court
to suspend the operation of appellate rules except in two instances not relevant here.
TEX. R. APP. P. 2. Rule 2 does not apply to suspend the operation of the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure and, generally, there must be valid service of process on the defendant
for a plaintiff to invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction. Kawasaki Steel Corp. v. Middleton,
699 S.W.2d 199, 200 (Tex. 1985). A defendant may, however, waive the issuance and
service of process by appearing and voluntarily submitting to the jurisdiction of the trial
court. Houston Crushed Concrete v. Concrete Recycling Corp., 879 S.W.2d 258, 260
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no writ). For the purpose of this proceeding, we
will assume without deciding, that Love and Jones were subject to the jurisdiction of the
trial court.
APPLICABLE LAW
The statutory scheme for indigent inmate litigation is governed by chapter 14 of
the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. §§ 14.001 - 14.014 (West 2017). Dismissal
of a suit is authorized under chapter 14 on a finding that the action is frivolous or
malicious. § 14.003(a)(2). A trial court may consider whether a suit has an arguable
basis in law or in fact when making the determination whether the suit is frivolous or
malicious. § 14.003(b)(2); Lagaite v. Boland, 300 S.W.3d 911, 913 (Tex. App.—Amarillo
2009, no pet.).
1 Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the methods for service of process. TEX. R. CIV. P. 21a. Rule 9.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that if a document is not electronically filed, a party must file the original and one unbound copy in this court. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.3(a).
3 In determining whether a claim is frivolous or malicious, the trial court may consider
whether:
(1) the claim’s realistic chance of ultimate success is slight;
(2) the claim has no arguable basis in law or in fact;
(3) it is clear that the party cannot prove facts in support of the claim; or
(4) the claim is substantially similar to a previous claim filed by the inmate because the claim arises from the same operative facts.
§ 14.003(b). However, when a claim is dismissed without conducting an evidentiary
hearing, the dismissal can only be affirmed if the claim has no arguable basis in law.
Hamilton v. Williams, 298 S.W.3d 334, 339 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. denied). A
claim has no basis in law if it is an indisputable meritless legal theory. Leachman v.
Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 304 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.). In other words, we
review a complaint to determine whether, as a matter of law, it stated a cause of action
that would authorize relief. Scott v. Gallagher, 209 S.W.3d 262, 266-67 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). We review de novo whether a claim has an arguable
basis in law. Moreland v. Johnson, 95 S.W.3d 392, 394 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2002, no pet.).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Applying the above-referenced standards, we review the dismissal of an indigent
inmate’s chapter 14 suit for abuse of discretion. Bishop v. Lawson, 131 S.W.3d 571, 574
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied); Retzlaff v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 94
S.W.3d 650, 654 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied). A trial court abuses
its discretion when it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Quixtar Inc.
4 v. Signature Mgmt. Team, LLC, 315 S.W.3d 28, 31 (Tex. 2010) (citing Downer v.
Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985)). The fact that a trial
court may decide a matter within its discretion in a different manner than an appellate
court in a similar circumstance does not demonstrate an abuse of discretion. Downer,
701 S.W.2d at 242. And, we will affirm an order of dismissal if it was proper under any
legal theory. Hamilton v. Pechacek, 319 S.W.3d 801, 809 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010,
no pet.).
In conducting our review, we accept as true the factual allegations in an inmate’s
petition and review the types of relief and causes of action set out therein to determine
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo ________________________
No. 07-18-00112-CV ________________________
STEVEN BOYD, APPELLANT
V.
COREY DUSTIN JONES AND ROBERT LOVE III, APPELLEES
On Appeal from the 47th District Court Randall County, Texas Trial Court No. 73,319-A; Honorable David L. Gleason, Presiding by Assignment
May 17, 2019
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before CAMPBELL, PIRTLE, and PARKER, JJ.
Steven Boyd, an inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, appeals the trial
court’s Order Dismissing “Due Course of Law Complaint” he filed against Robert Love III
and Corey Dustin Jones. By three issues, he contends (1) the trial court abused its
discretion in dismissing his complaint for failing to appropriately state a cause of action;
and that the trial court erred in (2) finding that his claim’s realistic chance of success was slight, had no arguable basis in law, and that Boyd could not prove facts in support of his
claim; and (3) dismissing his suit because the requested admissions were deemed
admitted. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On January 17, 2018, Boyd sued Love, a Randall County prosecutor, and Jones,
an Amarillo police officer, for allegedly conspiring to deprive him of his due process rights
in a robbery prosecution in trial court cause number 24,143-A. By his “Due Course of
Law Complaint,” Boyd alleged that Jones “fabricated and distributed a false confession
to prosecutors” and that Love “allow[ed] it to go uncorrected.” He claims Appellees’
actions violated Article I, Sections 10 and 19 of the Texas Constitution as well as the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
Simultaneously with his complaint, Boyd filed a discovery request pursuant to Rule
190.3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure and a request for admissions under Rule
198.1. TEX. R. CIV. P. 190.3, 198.1. Several months later, the trial court dismissed Boyd’s
suit pursuant to section 14.003(b) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Boyd
now challenges that dismissal.
We further note that, although the clerk’s record contains two “citation” requests
for Appellees, there is nothing to indicate they were ever served. Boyd filed a document
entitled “Tex. R. App. Proc. Rule 2 Motion to Suspend Tex. R. Civ. Proc. Rule 21(A) and
Tex. R. App. Proc. Rule 9.3,” by which he requested suspension of the rules requiring
2 service of process.1 Rule 2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure allows this court
to suspend the operation of appellate rules except in two instances not relevant here.
TEX. R. APP. P. 2. Rule 2 does not apply to suspend the operation of the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure and, generally, there must be valid service of process on the defendant
for a plaintiff to invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction. Kawasaki Steel Corp. v. Middleton,
699 S.W.2d 199, 200 (Tex. 1985). A defendant may, however, waive the issuance and
service of process by appearing and voluntarily submitting to the jurisdiction of the trial
court. Houston Crushed Concrete v. Concrete Recycling Corp., 879 S.W.2d 258, 260
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, no writ). For the purpose of this proceeding, we
will assume without deciding, that Love and Jones were subject to the jurisdiction of the
trial court.
APPLICABLE LAW
The statutory scheme for indigent inmate litigation is governed by chapter 14 of
the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. §§ 14.001 - 14.014 (West 2017). Dismissal
of a suit is authorized under chapter 14 on a finding that the action is frivolous or
malicious. § 14.003(a)(2). A trial court may consider whether a suit has an arguable
basis in law or in fact when making the determination whether the suit is frivolous or
malicious. § 14.003(b)(2); Lagaite v. Boland, 300 S.W.3d 911, 913 (Tex. App.—Amarillo
2009, no pet.).
1 Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides for the methods for service of process. TEX. R. CIV. P. 21a. Rule 9.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that if a document is not electronically filed, a party must file the original and one unbound copy in this court. TEX. R. APP. P. 9.3(a).
3 In determining whether a claim is frivolous or malicious, the trial court may consider
whether:
(1) the claim’s realistic chance of ultimate success is slight;
(2) the claim has no arguable basis in law or in fact;
(3) it is clear that the party cannot prove facts in support of the claim; or
(4) the claim is substantially similar to a previous claim filed by the inmate because the claim arises from the same operative facts.
§ 14.003(b). However, when a claim is dismissed without conducting an evidentiary
hearing, the dismissal can only be affirmed if the claim has no arguable basis in law.
Hamilton v. Williams, 298 S.W.3d 334, 339 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. denied). A
claim has no basis in law if it is an indisputable meritless legal theory. Leachman v.
Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 304 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.). In other words, we
review a complaint to determine whether, as a matter of law, it stated a cause of action
that would authorize relief. Scott v. Gallagher, 209 S.W.3d 262, 266-67 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.). We review de novo whether a claim has an arguable
basis in law. Moreland v. Johnson, 95 S.W.3d 392, 394 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]
2002, no pet.).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Applying the above-referenced standards, we review the dismissal of an indigent
inmate’s chapter 14 suit for abuse of discretion. Bishop v. Lawson, 131 S.W.3d 571, 574
(Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied); Retzlaff v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 94
S.W.3d 650, 654 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied). A trial court abuses
its discretion when it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Quixtar Inc.
4 v. Signature Mgmt. Team, LLC, 315 S.W.3d 28, 31 (Tex. 2010) (citing Downer v.
Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985)). The fact that a trial
court may decide a matter within its discretion in a different manner than an appellate
court in a similar circumstance does not demonstrate an abuse of discretion. Downer,
701 S.W.2d at 242. And, we will affirm an order of dismissal if it was proper under any
legal theory. Hamilton v. Pechacek, 319 S.W.3d 801, 809 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010,
no pet.).
In conducting our review, we accept as true the factual allegations in an inmate’s
petition and review the types of relief and causes of action set out therein to determine
whether, as a matter of law, the petition stated a cause of action that would authorize
relief. Id. A claim has no arguable basis in law if the facts alleged are wholly incredible
or it relies on an indisputably meritless legal theory. Williams, 298 S.W.3d at 339.
ANALYSIS
The trial court dismissed Boyd’s suit and in doing so, entered the following findings:
(1) In 2014, [Boyd] was convicted in Cause No. 24,143-A in the 47th District Court of Randall County, Texas, pursuant to a guilty plea.
(2) [Boyd] is currently an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, and is housed at the Jordan Unit;
(3) [Boyd] appears to be indigent;
(4) The “Complaint” filed herein presents a series of recitations of some general principles of law, but fails to appropriately state any cause of action;
(5) The claim’s realistic chance of success is slight, the claim has no arguable basis in law, and it is clear that [Boyd] cannot prove facts in support of the claim; and
5 (6) This complaint is frivolous as described in Section 14.003, Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
Boyd has made numerous attempts in this court to re-litigate his robbery conviction
in trial court cause number 24,143-A, a charge to which he entered a plea of guilty. See
Boyd v. State, No. 07-14-00245-CR, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 8445, at *1-2 (Tex. App.—
Amarillo Aug. 1, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (dismissing
appeal from the robbery conviction based on the Trial Court’s Certification of Defendant’s
Right of Appeal after he pleaded guilty and voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived
his right to appeal); In re Boyd, No. 07-15-00209-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 7156, at *1
(Tex. App.—Amarillo July 10, 2015, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (denying mandamus
relief on request to void judgment of conviction in trial court cause number 24,143-A);
Boyd v. Love, 07-17-00081-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 9579, at *8 (Tex. App.—Amarillo
Oct. 11, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (affirming trial court’s dismissal of Boyd’s suit
alleging a conspiracy in his robbery case by the trial judge, Love, and his common law
spouse).
Boyd’s underlying suit is substantially similar to some of his previous suits and
arises from the same operative facts that resulted in his robbery conviction. The addition
of Officer Jones as a defendant in the underlying suit is a novelty. Additionally, Boyd’s
claim is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory—a conspiracy to deprive him of
his due process rights in his robbery conviction. Boyd voluntarily pleaded guilty to the
robbery charge and his appeal from the conviction that followed was dismissed based on
his plea and his voluntary waiver of appeal. Furthermore, his complaint does not state a
cause of action that would authorize relief. Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its
6 discretion in dismissing Boyd’s complaint. Issues one and two are overruled. Issue three
complaining of his discovery requests is rendered moot.
CONCLUSION
The trial court’s Order Dismissing “Due Course of Law Complaint” is affirmed.
Patrick A. Pirtle Justice