Brent Alan McLean v. Brad Livingston
486 S.W.3d 561
| Tex. | 2016Background
- Brent McLean, a Texas state inmate, sued TDCJ officials seeking a declaration that he was eligible for mandatory release; the trial court granted the officials’ plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed his suit.
- McLean appealed to the Tenth Court of Appeals and filed an affidavit of inability to pay costs but omitted: (1) the separate affidavit identifying prior pro se actions (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 14.004) and (2) a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement (§ 14.006(f)).
- The court of appeals dismissed the appeal as frivolous for failure to include the Chapter 14 filings; McLean later filed an amended notice of appeal that included the missing Chapter 14 materials and sought rehearing, which the court denied.
- Courts of appeals are split: six appellate courts have given inmates an opportunity to cure Chapter 14 defects before dismissal; three (including the Tenth) have dismissed without permitting cure.
- Texas Supreme Court examined whether an appellate court must allow an inmate a chance to amend Chapter 14 filing defects before dismissing the appeal.
- The Supreme Court held that appellate courts must allow an opportunity to amend/cure Chapter 14 filing defects and remanded McLean’s case for merits review because McLean timely corrected the deficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate courts may dismiss an appeal for failure to file required Chapter 14 documents without allowing amendment | McLean: appellate court must permit amendment/cure of Chapter 14 defects; his amended filings cured defect | Respondents/Tenth Ct: statute authorizes summary dismissal for noncompliance; no further opportunity necessary | Court: Rule 44.3 and precedent require a reasonable opportunity to correct procedural defects; appellate courts must allow inmates to amend Chapter 14 filings before dismissal |
| Whether Chapter 14 filings are jurisdictional or procedural | McLean: filings are procedural prerequisites to costs relief, not merits-jurisdictional bars | TDCJ Officials/Tenth Ct: noncompliance justifies summary dismissal as essential procedural requirement | Court: Chapter 14 imposes appellate procedural requirements governed by Rule 44.3; not an absolute jurisdictional bar to dismissal without chance to cure |
| Whether Peña v. McDowell requires dismissal with prejudice for Chapter 14 noncompliance | McLean: Peña supports allowing amendment rather than dismissal with prejudice | Court of Appeals: relied on earlier appellate practice to deny cure | Court: Peña precludes dismissal with prejudice for such defects; amendment must be allowed |
| Effect of inmate’s amended filing filed after initial defective notice of appeal | McLean: amended notice cured deficiency and should permit merits consideration | Respondents: initial noncompliance warranted dismissal regardless of later cure | Court: amended filing remedied procedural defect; remand for merits review |
Key Cases Cited
- Peña v. McDowell, 201 S.W.3d 665 (Tex. 2006) (requires that dismissals for Chapter 14 pleading defects be correctable by amendment; disfavors dismissal with prejudice)
- Warner v. Glass, 135 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. 2004) (recognizes need to safeguard inmates’ access to courts and procedural protections for inmates)
- Higgins v. Randall Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 193 S.W.3d 898 (Tex. 2006) (Rule 44.3 forbids dismissal for procedural defects without opportunity to correct)
- Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615 (Tex. 1997) (articulates policy disfavouring disposition of appeals on harmless procedural defects)
- Grand Prairie Indep. Sch. Dist. v. S. Parts Imps., Inc., 813 S.W.2d 499 (Tex. 1991) (appellate courts must allow timely filers an opportunity to amend or refile to perfect appeal)
- Hickson v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996) (trial-court-level interpretation that Chapter 14 filings assist court review; cited by some courts to justify dismissal without cure)