Artis Charles Harrell v. Kim Ogg, 14-18-00848-CV

Appellant Artis Charles Harrell is incarcerated and serving a 99‑year sentence.
Harrell sought public records from Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg under the Texas Public Information Act to support a civil legal‑malpractice claim against his former criminal lawyer.
Ogg declined the request citing Texas Government Code § 552.028, which permits governmental bodies to refuse or decline information requests from incarcerated individuals.
Harrell sued, seeking a declaratory judgment that § 552.028 is unconstitutional as applied; the Attorney General was later named but not served.
The trial court dismissed Harrell’s suit as frivolous under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 14.003; Harrell appealed to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 552.028 is unconstitutional as applied	Harrell: statute unlawfully denies him access to public records needed for civil litigation	Ogg: statute validly grants discretion to refuse inmate requests; not unconstitutional	Court: statute constitutional as applied; Harrell has no arguable basis in law; dismissal affirmed
Whether § 552.028 conflicts with a civil litigant’s right to obtain non‑party discovery	Harrell: he has an absolute right to secure documents from a non‑party under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure	Ogg: public‑records statute governs TPIA requests and does not displace civil discovery rules	Court: no conflict; subpoenas (Rule 205.1) govern non‑party civil discovery and coexist with § 552.028
Equal protection challenge	Harrell: statute discriminates against incarcerated persons by denying access available to non‑incarcerated persons	Ogg: prisoners are not a suspect class; statute survives rational‑basis review to conserve public resources	Court: rejected Harrell’s equal protection claim; statute furthers legitimate state interest
Due process challenge	Harrell: deprivation of access to information implicates due process	Ogg: inmates have no constitutionally protected due‑process right to TPIA records	Court: followed precedent holding no due‑process right to TPIA information for inmates; claim lacks merit

Nabelek v. Bradford, 228 S.W.3d 715 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (holding incarcerated individuals have no due‑process right to TPIA information)
Nabelek v. Dist. Att’y of Harris Cty., 290 S.W.3d 222 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (recognizing governmental discretion to deny inmate information requests under § 552.028)
Retzlaff v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 94 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (standard of review for chapter 14 frivolous‑claim dismissals)
Holmes v. Morales, 924 S.W.2d 920 (Tex. 1996) (Harris County DA’s office is a "governmental body" under the Open Records Act)
Harrison v. Vance, 34 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2000) (disclosure to incarcerated requestors is discretionary)