Fernandez v. T.D.C.J.
2010 Tex. App. LEXIS 10307
| Tex. App. | 2010Background
- Fernandez, a state prison inmate, sues TDCJ and several officials for confiscating food and other items from his storage locker during a cell-block shakedown.
- The confiscated items included large quantities of meat, beverages, beans, and other commissary goods, plus envelopes and nail clippers.
- Fernandez claimed he produced receipts at the disciplinary hearing but was found short and punished with cell restriction and loss of commissary privileges.
- Grievances were pursued; Step 1 denied by Johnson, Step 2 denied by Brisher, with disputes over ownership and documentation.
- The defendants moved to dismiss under Chapter 14 as frivolous, arguing failures to exhaust remedies, Heck v. Humphrey, and lack of arguable legal basis; the trial court granted dismissal without stating basis.
- The court ultimately remanded on one equal-protection issue while affirming dismissal on others.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Heck v. Humphrey bars Fernandez's §1983 claims. | Fernandez argues Heck does not apply. | Appellees argue Heck bars claims that would imply invalidity of confinement. | Partially sustained; Heck does not bar claims challenging the disciplinary proceeding itself if relief would not invalidate confinement. |
| Whether Fernandez exhausted administrative remedies for inverse-condemnation claim. | Fernandez satisfied exhaustion by raising related ownership issues. | Defendants contend lack of specific grievance on inverse condemnation. | Sustained; Fernandez exhausted operative facts required by the grievance process. |
| Whether the Texas Tort Claims Act claim has arguable basis in law. | Fernandez claims property injury from state action. | TA TA claim requires personal injury or death; Fernandez seeks property loss. | No arguable basis; dismissal upheld. |
| Whether AD-03.72 is constitutional and enforceable against Fernandez. | AD-03.72 lacking legitimate penological interest or enforcements were arbitrary. | Regulation reasonably related to penological interests; constitutionality is sustained. | AD-03.72 facially constitutional; equal-protection concern noted as arguable but later dismissed. |
| Whether Fernandez has any arguable basis under §1983 against individual officers. | Officers violated constitutional rights by asset seizure. | Policies followed; post-deprivation remedies exist. | No arguable basis against officers; conversion or administrative remedies provide relief; equal-protection claim survives. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) (damages claims may be barred if conviction would be undermined by success)
- Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997) (disciplinary proceedings may bar §1983 claims when affecting good-time credits)
- Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749 (2004) (disciplinary outcomes not necessarily tied to underlying conviction for Heck purposes)
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (parole-proceeding challenges allowed when relief does not speed release)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (regulations must be reasonably related to legitimate penological interests)
- Overton v. Bazzetta, 539 U.S. 126 (2003) (four-factor test for prison-regulation constitutionality)
- Jones v. Tex. Dep't of Crim. Just.-Inst. Div., 318 S.W.3d 398 (Tex.App.-Waco 2010) (TDCJ preemption of certain liability under Tort Claims Act)
- Presley v. Cooper, 284 S.W.2d 138 (Tex. 1955) (elements of conversion)
- Apple Imports, Inc. v. Koole, 945 S.W.2d 899 (Tex.App.-Austin 1997) (elements of conversion)