498 S.W.3d 247
Tex. App.2016Background
- Calton, a Texas inmate convicted of attempted murder (2004), alleged appellate record omissions impeded his direct appeal and filed suit seeking damages and injunctive relief (including an out‑of‑time appeal) against former court reporter Steve Schiller and several judges.
- Schiller located and transcribed some missing pretrial transcripts after Calton filed a grievance; the Court Reporter Certification Board privately reprimanded Schiller for violations.
- Calton sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state tort theories, naming judges in their official capacities and Schiller individually and officially; he sought over $1 million and court orders to complete the record and authorize an out‑of‑time appeal.
- The judges moved to dismiss asserting judicial and sovereign immunity; the trial court granted dismissal. Schiller moved to dismiss under qualified immunity and Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 14; the trial court dismissed Schiller under Chapter 14 as frivolous.
- The court of appeals affirmed: (1) judicial immunity deprived the trial court of jurisdiction over claims against the judges, and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Calton’s claims against Schiller as frivolous under Chapter 14.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims against judges are actionable | Calton sought damages and injunctive relief for alleged appellate‑record failures by judges | Judges invoked judicial (and sovereign) immunity, arguing absolute immunity for judicial acts | Dismissal affirmed: judicial immunity bars Calton's claims; trial court lacked jurisdiction |
| Whether plaintiff could obtain prospective injunctive relief (out‑of‑time appeal) | Calton requested injunctions ordering an out‑of‑time appeal and forcing production of records | Defendants argued injunctive relief unavailable and post‑conviction relief is limited to habeas corpus procedures | Denied: prospective injunctive relief unavailable; habeas is exclusive remedy for final felony convictions |
| Whether claims against court reporter survived Chapter 14 screening | Calton alleged negligence, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and §1983 claims to force record completion and secure relief | Schiller argued dismissal under Chapter 14 as frivolous; prior similar filings and low likelihood of success | Affirmed: court did not abuse discretion; claims frivolous/substantially similar to prior filings and unlikely to succeed |
| Whether trial court erred by failing to appoint counsel / consider later amended complaint | Calton asserted mental illness and later filings (ninth amended complaint) were not considered | Defendants and court treated filings under Chapter 14 standards and procedural rules; no entitlement shown | Implicitly rejected: dispositive immunity and frivolousness rulings made errors moot; no abuse of discretion shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (judicial immunity protects judges for judicial acts even if done in error or with malice)
- Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522 (1984) (judicial immunity does not bar prospective injunctive relief against judicial officers in certain circumstances)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (§1983 damages claims that would imply invalidity of conviction are barred until conviction is invalidated)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s suppression of exculpatory evidence violates due process)
- Tex. Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standards for subject‑matter jurisdiction review and pleading requirements)
- Kennedy v. Staples, 336 S.W.3d 745 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011) (discussing absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts)