Evangelos Pagonis v. Catherine Thomas, 07-15-00090-CV

Pro se plaintiff Evangelos Pagonis, a TDCJ inmate, sued correctional officer Catherine Thomas for theft/conversion of a 2011 wall calendar allegedly taken during a cell search on March 17, 2013.
Plaintiff alleged the calendar contained medical appointment dates relevant to a separate lawsuit and claimed retaliation; he sued Thomas in her individual capacity and sought large damages.
Justice Court dismissed the claim under Chapter 14 (inmate frivolous suits); plaintiff appealed but failed to perfect the appeal by filing the required bond or a Statement of Inability to Pay within the cure period.
The district and county courts upheld dismissal; defendants (through the Attorney General) argued additional grounds: the loss was de minimis and plaintiff’s claims are barred by sovereign immunity because the officer acted within the scope of employment and the claim alleges intentional torts.
The appellee requests affirmance on procedural grounds (failure to perfect appeal), substantive triviality (de minimis), and sovereign immunity (no TTCA waiver for intentional torts).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial courts abused discretion by dismissing after plaintiff failed to perfect his Justice Court appeal	Pagonis contends dismissal was improper and seeks review of Justice Court judgment	Pagonis failed to pay the $500 bond or timely file a Statement of Inability to Pay and did not cure defects within the seven‑day notice period	Affirm dismissal for failure to perfect appeal (no abuse of discretion)
Whether the claim is frivolous under the de minimis doctrine	Plaintiff claims calendar had consequential value for medical‑date evidence	Defendant: the calendar was expired and had negligible value; similar inmate claims have been dismissed as de minimis	Claim subject to dismissal as de minimis (law does not concern trifles)
Whether sovereign immunity bars the theft/conversion claim	Plaintiff treats claim as against the individual officer (personal capacity)	Defendant: officer acted within scope of employment so suit is effectively against the State; TTCA does not waive immunity for intentional torts like theft/conversion	Claim barred by sovereign immunity (no waiver for intentional torts); suit deemed official‑capacity and not maintainable

Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
Franka v. Velasquez, 332 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. 2011) (scope‑of‑employment analysis for official‑capacity suits)
Texas Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Petta, 44 S.W.3d 575 (Tex. 2001) (substance‑over‑form in sovereign immunity analysis)
Walker v. Gonzales County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 35 S.W.3d 157 (Tex. App. 2000) (affirmance standards when trial court gives no specific grounds)
Ollie v. Plano Indep. Sch. Dist., 383 S.W.3d 783 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012) (acts within duties delineate scope of employment)
Vincent v. West Texas State Univ., 895 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1995) (sovereign immunity and official‑capacity characterizations)