Darrell J. Harper v. State
03-15-00405-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 14, 2015Background
- Darrell J. Harper, a pro se, incarcerated plaintiff, sued the State of Texas seeking $3,000,000 for harassment, entrapment, false incarceration/false arrest, and malicious prosecution.
- The State moved under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code chapter 11 to declare Harper a vexatious litigant and require security to proceed.
- The district court held a hearing, found Harper vexatious, and ordered him to post $2,500 by March 2, 2015.
- Harper did not post the required security. The court entered final judgment on May 29, 2015, dismissing his case.
- The court’s vexatious-litigant finding relied on (a) Harper having filed at least nine prior pro se civil suits in the prior seven years that were dismissed or determined adversely to him, and (b) lack of a reasonable probability Harper could overcome sovereign immunity as to his claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Harper qualifies as a vexatious litigant under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §11.054 based on prior filings | Harper implicitly argues his suit should proceed and prior dismissals do not render him vexatious | Harper filed at least five (indeed nine) pro se suits in the prior seven years that were finally determined adversely to him, meeting §11.054 criteria | Court upheld that Harper met the numeric/qualifying criteria and is a vexatious litigant |
| Whether there is a reasonable probability Harper will prevail in the current suit | Harper contends his claims merit adjudication (pro se filing) | State argues sovereign immunity bars Harper’s intentional-tort claims and harassment/entrapment are not waived by the TTCA, so no reasonable probability of success | Court held Harper had no reasonable probability of success because sovereign immunity bars his claims |
| Whether the trial court properly ordered Harper to furnish security and set amount/deadline | Harper (pro se) effectively objected by not complying; no substantive defense to requirement offered | Under §11.055 the court must order security for a vexatious litigant; the district court set $2,500 and a deadline | Court’s order to furnish security was proper and within statutory scheme |
| Whether dismissal for failure to post security was proper under §11.056/11.057 | Harper failed to post security and offered no legal basis to avoid dismissal | Statute mandates dismissal if ordered security is not furnished within time set | Court affirmed mandatory dismissal for failure to post security |
Key Cases Cited
- BMC Software Belg. N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (abuse-of-discretion standard described for trial-court rulings)
- Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1998) (standards for abuse of discretion)
- City of LaPorte v. Barfield, 898 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. 1995) (sovereign-immunity waiver requires clear legislative language)
- Univ. of Texas Med. Branch v. York, 871 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1994) (scope of waiver of governmental immunity)
- Lowe v. Texas Tech. Univ., 540 S.W.2d 297 (Tex. 1976) (interpretation of waivers of immunity)
- City of Hempstead v. Kmiec, 902 S.W.2d 118 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995) (intentional torts like false arrest not within TTCA waiver)
- Harris v. Rose, 204 S.W.3d 903 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (abuse-of-discretion review for vexatious-litigant determinations)