Willie G. Ellis v. Amos L. Co II

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 13, 1995
• Docket: 10-95-00221-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Ellis v. L. Amos, et al

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-95-221-CV

     WILLIE G. ELLIS,

                                                                                              Appellant

     v.

     L. AMOS, ET AL.,

                                                                                              Appellees

From the 87th District Court

Freestone County, Texas

Trial Court # 95-178-B

O P I N I O N

      Willie G. Ellis, a prison inmate, brought an action in forma pauperis against four correctional officers. Tex. R. Civ. P. 145. The trial court dismissed the action "pursuant to its vested authority under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. [C]ode Ann. 13.001." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 13.001 (Vernon Supp. 1995). Ellis appeals, arguing that the court abused its discretion in dismissing his suit as frivolous without stating a reason for the dismissal. Because we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action, we affirm.

      Ellis' original petition asserts that the correctional officers "intentionally and knowingly with malice discriminated against [him], when these defendant[s] wrote [a] false disciplinary report." He asserted that this false report caused him to lose "good time," restricted his commissary privileges, reduced his "inmate status" level, and resulted in his being given fifteen days of solitary confinement.

      Trial courts have broad discretion in dismissing frivolous or malicious in forma pauperis actions. Thomas v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, Inst. Div., 848 S.W.2d 797, 798 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied). We review a dismissal under section 13.001 by determining whether the court abused its discretion. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 13.001; Johnson v. Peterson, 799 S.W.2d 345, 347 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no writ). Abuse of discretion is determined by whether the court acted without reference to any guiding principles. Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, 134 Tex. 388, 133 S.W.2d 124, 126 (1939). Stated another way: Was the act of the court arbitrary or unreasonable? Smithson v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 665 S.W.2d 439, 443 (Tex. 1984); Landry v. Travelers Ins. Co., 458 S.W.2d 649, 651 (Tex. 1970).

      Ellis' complaint is based on the defendants' allegedly filing a false disciplinary report, but there is no evidence that he first sought to redress his grievance through the prison grievance system. TDCJ-ID has, pursuant to statute, developed a system for the resolution of inmate grievances. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 501.008 (Vernon Supp. 1995). The TDCJ-ID board policy on inmate grievances specifically applies to complaints about the interpretation and application of policies, denial of access to the grievance procedure, and reprisals against inmates for filing grievances. See Tex. Dep't Corrections, Inmate Grievances (Inst. Div. January 1988). One of the remedies is "correction of records." Id. Because Ellis failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his suit. Pedraza v. Tibbs, 826 S.W.2d 695, 699 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, writ dism'd w.o.j.).

      We affirm the judgment.

                                                                                 BILL VANCE

                                                                                 Justice

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

          Justice Cummings, and

          Justice Vance

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed September 13, 1995

Do not publish