Adolfo Garcia Ybarra Jr. v. Warden Strong
13-20-00030-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 1, 2021Background
- Appellant Adolfo Garcia Ybarra Jr., a TDCJ inmate, sued multiple Ellis Unit employees in both individual and official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging threats, retaliation for filing grievances, false disciplinary charges, wrongful disclosure of personal information, deprivation of legal materials/property, and endangering his life.
- Appellant filed the suit pro se and in forma pauperis on October 31, 2018, and filed Step 1 and Step 2 grievances about the primary incident (July 23, 2018).
- The trial court ordered the Texas Attorney General to file an amicus advisory on compliance with Chapter 14; the AG advised that appellant had not exhausted Chapter 14 requirements and the court stayed proceedings for 180 days to permit amendment.
- Appellant filed an amended petition but failed to comply with Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 14.004(a)(2): he listed two prior pro se suits but omitted operative facts, full party identities, and whether prior dismissals were for frivolous or malicious claims.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Chapter 14 and asserted immunity defenses; the trial court denied injunctive relief and granted dismissal with prejudice. Appellant appealed, arguing five errors; the court affirmed based on failure to meet the affidavit requirement and that dismissal with prejudice was proper after an opportunity to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of filing (within 30 days) | Ybarra contends he filed timely within statutory window | Defendants relied on Chapter 14 noncompliance to bar suit | Not reached on merits; appellate court did not decide because dismissal affirmed on affidavit ground |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies under Chapter 14 | Ybarra argues he exhausted procedures and grievances | Defendants argue he failed to satisfy Chapter 14 exhaustion requirements | Not reached on merits; court affirmed dismissal based on affidavit deficiency |
| Affidavit requirement under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 14.004(a)(2) (listing prior suits, operative facts, parties, results) | Ybarra claims substantial compliance; facts here postdate prior suits so court could tell claims differ | Defendants argue amended petition failed to identify operative facts, all parties, and whether prior suits were dismissed as frivolous/malicious, so noncompliance justifies dismissal | Held against Ybarra: he did not substantially comply; dismissal was proper |
| Whether § 1983 claims are subject to TTCA/Chapter 14 procedures | Ybarra argues § 1983 claims are not controlled by TTCA/chapter requirements | Defendants assert Chapter 14 procedures apply to in forma pauperis inmate suits and justify dismissal | Not decided on merits; resolved by dismissal for affidavit noncompliance |
| Dismissal with prejudice (abuse of discretion) | Ybarra argues dismissal should have been without prejudice | Defendants argue dismissal with prejudice was appropriate after court gave 180 days and opportunity to amend | Held: dismissal with prejudice was proper because appellant was given opportunity to amend and still failed to comply |
Key Cases Cited
- Lentworth v. Trahan, 981 S.W.2d 720 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998) (supports dismissal with prejudice after opportunity to amend)
- Retzlaff v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 94 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (explains reasons for strict control of prisoner in forma pauperis suits)
- Hickson v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996) (standard of review for Chapter 14 dismissals—abuse of discretion)
- Gowan v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just., 99 S.W.3d 319 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003) (substantial compliance doctrine for § 14.004)
- Bell v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Just.–Institutional Div., 962 S.W.2d 156 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998) (purpose of affidavit requirement to detect repetitious/frivolous inmate claims)
- Obadele v. Johnson, 60 S.W.3d 345 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001) (affidavits that fail to identify parties and operative facts do not substantially comply)
- Douglas v. Turner, 441 S.W.3d 337 (Tex. App.—Waco 2013) (court may assume noncompliant filings are substantially similar to prior suits and frivolous)
- Hughes v. Massey, 65 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2001) (dismissals for failure to comply with filing rules are generally without prejudice unless amendment opportunity was given)
- Hubler v. City of Corpus Christi, 564 S.W.2d 816 (Tex. Civ. App.—Corpus Christi 1978) (dismissal with prejudice appropriate after amendment opportunity)