Timothy Edward Holz v. United States of America Corporation
This text of Timothy Edward Holz v. United States of America Corporation (Timothy Edward Holz v. United States of America Corporation) 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.
Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________
NO. 09-18-00204-CV ________________
TIMOTHY EDWARD HOLZ, Appellant
V.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Appellee __________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 60th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. B-201,556 __________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pro se appellant Timothy Edward Holz appeals from the trial court’s dismissal
of his lawsuit pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 14.001-14.014 (West 2017). Specifically,
Holz argues that the trial judge erred by dismissing the suit with prejudice before an
answer was filed. We affirm the trial court’s order as modified.
1 BACKGROUND
Holz filed suit against the “United States of America Corporation, c/o J.F.
Caraway.” 1 In his “individual capacity complaint,” Holz asserted that after returning
from the hospital, he was placed in a special housing unit at a federal prison in
Jefferson County, Texas, as Hurricane Harvey approached. Holz asserted that for the
next twenty-one days, he suffered “inhumane” conditions of confinement, including
lack of air conditioning, electricity, water, laundry, as well as denial of pain
medication. According to Holz, the alleged failure to protect the inmates from the
approaching storm constituted a violation of the Eighth Amendment. See U.S. Const.
amend. VIII. Holz specifically asserted claims for the following: (1) attempted
murder “which is a specific civil wrong[;]” (2) abandonment; (3) cruel and unusual
punishment via denial of pain medication; (4) inhumane confinement conditions due
to “being unable to eat the small amount of food in our possession due to the stench
of a toilet full of feces[;]” (5) a due process violation for “deliberate ‘attempted
murder[;]’” (6) violation of the Eighth Amendment by failing to protect inmates
from a “known imminent risk of deadly force[;]” (7) violation of the Eighth
1 In his petition, Holz states that J.F. Caraway is the Regional Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. 2 Amendment due to denial of pain medication; and (8) violation of the Fifth
Amendment for “deliberate indifference” by denying prescribed pain medications.
Holz sought $25,000,000,000 in compensatory damages for each claim and
$25,000,000,000 in punitive damages for each claim. Holz attached to his petition
(1) his inmate register number from the website of the Federal Bureau of Prisons;
(2) a “sworn affidavit” 2 in which he describes the severity of Hurricane Harvey and
compared it to the storm that struck Galveston at the beginning of the twentieth
century; (3) a civil case information sheet; (4) a request for service of process; (5) a
statement of inability to afford court costs or an appeal bond; (6) a citation without
a return; (7) a citation by mailing, also without a return; (8) a second citation by
mailing with a return of service, which indicated that “USA Corporation” had been
served by certified mail on April 9, 2018; and (9) a delivery confirmation from the
United States Postal Service. On April 30, 2018, the trial court signed an order
dismissing Holz’s case with prejudice. Holz appealed.
ANALYSIS
In his sole appellate issue, Holz contends that the trial judge erred by
dismissing the suit with prejudice before an answer was filed. We review the trial
2 Holz’s “affidavit” was not notarized, and it appears to be an unsworn declaration. 3 court’s dismissal under an abuse of discretion standard. Hickson v. Moya, 926
S.W.2d 397, 398 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996, no writ). We will affirm the trial court’s
dismissal if it was proper under any legal theory. See Johnson v. Lynaugh, 796
S.W.2d 705, 706-07 (Tex. 1990). In forma pauperis suits by inmates, such as Holz’s
lawsuit, are governed by Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 14.001-14.014. Section 14.004 requires
an inmate who files an unsworn declaration of inability to pay costs to file a separate
affidavit or declaration that identifies each action, other than one under the Family
Code, previously brought by the inmate pro se, without regard to whether the person
was an inmate when the suits were brought. Id. § 14.004(a)(1). The affidavit or
declaration must describe each previously-brought action by stating the operative
facts for which relief was sought; listing the case name, cause number, and court
where the action was filed; identifying each party named in the action; and stating
the result of the action. Id. § 14.004(a)(2).
Holz did not provide a separate affidavit or declaration that identified each
action he previously filed pro se, as required by section 14.004(a)(1). See id. §
14.004(a)(1). Because Holz’s filing failed to comply with the requirements of
Chapter 14, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing
Holz’s case. See id. § 14.004(a). We therefore overrule Holz’s issue. Although we
4 hold that the trial court did not err by dismissing Holz’s suit, the dismissal did not
concern the merits of Holz’s claims. “A dismissal for failure to comply with the rules
governing the filing of in forma pauperis suits is not a ruling on the merits;
accordingly, it is error to dismiss the suit with prejudice if the inmate was not first
provided with an opportunity to amend his pleadings.” Hughes v. Massey, 65 S.W.3d
743, 746 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2001, no pet.). We modify the judgment to provide
that the cause is dismissed without prejudice. See id. We affirm the trial court’s order
of dismissal as modified. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b).
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
______________________________ STEVE McKEITHEN Chief Justice
Submitted on October 23, 2018 Opinion Delivered November 29, 2018
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Timothy Edward Holz v. United States of America Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/timothy-edward-holz-v-united-states-of-america-corporation-texapp-2018.