Abelardo G. Gonzalez v. Isidro R. Alaniz and Pedro Morales
04-20-00530-CV
| Tex. App. | Mar 23, 2022Background:
- In 2017 Belinda Rangel crashed into Gonzalez’s fence; Gonzalez obtained a justice-court judgment for $8,026.74 in January 2019 against Rangel.
- Rangel pled guilty to DWI in 2018 and was sentenced to probation; the criminal court did not order restitution.
- Gonzalez (pro se) sued Webb County District Attorney Isidro Alaniz and Assistant DA Pedro Morales in their official capacities, alleging they failed to notify him of the criminal proceedings and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief requiring notice of any future proceedings affecting his property.
- Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting lack of an underlying cause of action, sovereign/prosecutorial immunity, and later disputed standing; Gonzalez amended to assert a §1983 claim for denial of access to courts/First Amendment violations.
- After a non‑evidentiary hearing the trial court granted the plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed Gonzalez’s suit with prejudice; Gonzalez appealed.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding Gonzalez lacked standing because any future injury was speculative and any retrospective relief related to the concluded criminal case was moot; dismissal with prejudice was proper because repleading could not cure lack of standing.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for prospective declaratory/injunctive relief | Gonzalez sought a prospective right to be notified of any future proceedings affecting his property and alleged a §1983 denial of access to courts | Appellees argued Gonzalez lacked a viable cause of action, raised immunity defenses, and that any prospective injury was speculative | Court held Gonzalez lacked standing: future injury was too remote/speculative; UDJA cannot create advisory jurisdiction |
| Dismissal with prejudice | Gonzalez argued dismissal with prejudice was improper | Appellees argued dismissal was appropriate because the jurisdictional defect could not be cured by repleading | Court held dismissal with prejudice proper because lack of standing could not be remedied by amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standards for plea to the jurisdiction; consider pleadings and relevant evidence)
- Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (treatment of live pleadings and consideration of evidence in jurisdictional review)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (constitutional standing elements)
- Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171 (Tex. 2001) (future injury too speculative to confer standing)
- Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (UDJA does not expand court jurisdiction or permit advisory opinions)
- Rogers v. City of Houston, 627 S.W.3d 777 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021) (future speculative government action insufficient for justiciable constitutional claim)
- Harris Cty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635 (Tex. 2004) (dismissal with prejudice proper when jurisdictional defect cannot be cured)