660 S.W.3d 749
Tex.2023Background
- Alfred Dewayne Brown was convicted of capital murder, maintained his innocence, and was released after post-conviction habeas relief; later a special prosecutor found him actually innocent and the trial court dismissed the charges.
- Brown filed a federal §1983 suit against Houston, Harris County, and officials before he received Tim Cole Act compensation; discovery in that lawsuit led to the special prosecutor’s investigation.
- Brown applied twice for Tim Cole Act compensation; the Texas Comptroller initially denied his claims but this Court (In re Brown) compelled payment; Brown has now received Tim Cole Act compensation.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment in the federal case, invoking Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §103.153(b), which bars a person who "receives compensation" from "bring[ing] any action involving the same subject matter" against governmental units or employees.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Fifth Circuit certified the question whether §103.153(b) bars maintenance of a suit that was filed before but continued after the claimant received compensation.
- The Texas Supreme Court answered the certified question: yes — receipt of Tim Cole Act compensation bars maintaining such a lawsuit; "bring" in §103.153(b) includes maintaining a suit, not just initiating it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §103.153(b) bars maintenance of a lawsuit filed before receiving Tim Cole Act compensation | "Bring" means to initiate/file; suit already filed, so §103.153(b) does not bar continuation | "Bring" encompasses maintaining/prosecuting a suit; receipt of compensation precludes any action involving same subject matter | Yes. Receipt of compensation bars maintaining the suit; "bring" includes maintaining it |
| How to interpret "bring" in §103.153(b): plain text vs. context and statutory history | Textually "bring" = initiation; statutory title/history irrelevant to plain meaning | Context, statutory structure, and history (choice of remedies and later elimination of suit option) show "bring" means more than filing and effectuates immunity | Court construed "bring" in context: legislative scheme and history support reading it to bar further litigation once compensation is received |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Oakley, 227 S.W.3d 58 (Tex. 2007) (statute’s bar applies once the State has paid a Chapter 103 claim)
- In re Brown, 614 S.W.3d 712 (Tex. 2020) (directing Comptroller to pay and describing Tim Cole Act’s administrative settlement scheme)
- TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Co. v. Combs, 340 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. 2011) (context is primary determinant of statutory meaning)
- Dynamic CRM Recruiting Sols., L.L.C. v. UMA Educ., Inc., 31 F.4th 914 (5th Cir. 2022) ("brought before" can mean to cause an action to exist under a forum’s jurisdiction—implying continuity)
- Serna v. Law Office of Joseph Onwuteaka, P.C., 732 F.3d 440 (5th Cir. 2013) ("bring such action" is not necessarily synonymous with merely filing a pleading)
- Walters v. Livingston, 514 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. App.—Austin 2016) (counterexample construing "bring" to mean initiation)
- Bowles v. Am. Stores, Inc., 139 F.2d 377 (D.C. Cir. 1943) ("bring an action" can mean to prosecute to judgment)