Alejos Perez v. City of Fort Worth Tarrant County, Texas And J. R. Molina
03-16-00545-CV
| Tex. App. | Jan 11, 2017Background
- Perez, a Texas inmate convicted of first-degree murder and serving a life sentence, sued the City of Fort Worth, Tarrant County, the DPS crime lab, and his former counsel Molina, seeking damages and relief for denial of parole.
- He alleged defendants provided inaccurate information to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (including an alleged mistaken belief that he was convicted of capital murder), resulting in repeated parole denials and racial-discrimination violations of his constitutional rights.
- Perez filed a “petition for declaratory judgment” in Travis County and sought $600,000 compensatory and $600,000 punitive damages from each defendant and temporary orders regarding unnamed individuals.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code chapter 14 (inmate litigation), arguing the claims were frivolous, barred by immunity, and that parole decisions are not city/county functions; the district court granted the dismissals after a hearing.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding Perez’s claims had no arguable basis in law because challenges to parole proceedings and to the fact/duration of confinement must be pursued by habeas corpus/post-conviction procedures (not a civil suit), and thus the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper vehicle to challenge parole denials | Perez argued civil suit (declaratory judgment) could redress alleged parole irregularities and discrimination | Parole irregularities must be raised by habeas/post-conviction proceedings; civil suit improper | Held: Civil suit was improper; habeas corpus/post-conviction relief is the exclusive route (dismissal affirmed) |
| Dismissal under Chapter 14 (frivolous suit) | Perez contended claims meritorious and court erred in dismissing them as frivolous | Defendants: claims have no arguable basis in law/fact; dismissal authorized under chapter 14 | Held: Dismissal was proper; claims frivolous because they challenge duration/eligibility for release and lack legal basis in civil court |
| Request for default judgment | Perez argued defendants failed to respond so default judgment was warranted | Defendants maintained claims lacked legal basis; even a default could not create jurisdiction or a viable cause | Held: Trial court properly denied default; a default judgment cannot be entered on claims that cannot succeed as a matter of law |
| Venue transfer and procedural objections (service/pleading defects, representation of Jenkins) | Perez argued court should have transferred venue and not considered dismissal motions due to procedural defects and inclusion of Jenkins as plaintiff | Defendants: procedural rules cited by Perez do not bar consideration; Perez cannot represent Jenkins; service issues left some parties unserved | Held: Procedural objections did not prevent dismissal; Perez lacked authority to sue for Jenkins; unserved parties are not before the court |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (state prisoner cannot use §1983 to challenge fact or duration of confinement; habeas remedy appropriate)
- Board of Pardons & Paroles v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995) (parole-proceeding irregularities addressed via post-conviction habeas)
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Penn, 363 S.W.2d 230 (Tex. 1962) (discontinued claims where service was defective and summary judgment disposed of other parties)
- Morgan v. Compugraphics, Co., 675 S.W.2d 729 (Tex. 1984) (default judgment binds only when petition alleges viable cause of action)
- M.O. Dental Lab v. Rape, 139 S.W.3d 671 (Tex. 2004) (claims against unserved parties considered discontinued for purposes of appeal)
- Nabelek v. District Att’y of Harris Cty., 290 S.W.3d 222 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (frivolous-claim standard under chapter 14; no basis in law or fact)
- Retzlaff v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 94 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (de novo review whether claims lack legal basis for dismissal)
- Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008) (abuse-of-discretion standard for chapter 14 dismissals)
- Hamilton v. Williams, 298 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009) (evaluate petition and requested relief to determine whether cause of action exists)