Fred Hoffman, TDCJ 1662898 v. Sgt. Javier Muro
13-19-00214-CV
Tex. App.Apr 15, 2021Background
- Fred Hoffman, a Texas inmate proceeding pro se in forma pauperis, sued TDCJ employees alleging they took his property without compensation and failed to investigate his grievance; he sought monetary and injunctive relief across multiple common-law and constitutional theories.
- The trial court dismissed Hoffman's suit as frivolous and for noncompliance with Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code.
- Hoffman filed an affidavit listing prior suits but did not set out the operative facts for those earlier actions as required by Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 14.004.
- Appellees filed a brief arguing frivolousness (Hoffman complained it was untimely); the court considered the brief but the dismissal rested on Hoffman’s failure to comply with Chapter 14.
- On appeal Hoffman argued the court abused its discretion by (1) accepting appellees’ allegedly untimely brief and (2–3) dismissing his case; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by considering appellees’ allegedly untimely brief | Hoffman: court erred by accepting and relying on appellees’ late brief | Appellees: brief supported dismissal; in any event, dismissal proper on statutory grounds | Court: overruled — even without the brief, dismissal was warranted because Hoffman failed to meet Chapter 14 requirements |
| Whether Hoffman complied with §14.004 by listing prior suits | Hoffman: his affidavit listing prior causes of action was sufficient | Appellees: affidavit lacked the required operative facts to permit the court to compare suits | Court: Hoffman failed to set out operative facts; court may assume current suit is substantially similar and frivolous |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the suit as frivolous under Chapter 14 | Hoffman: dismissal was an abuse of discretion | Appellees: dismissal is proper when Chapter 14’s mandatory affidavit requirements are not met | Court: no abuse of discretion; dismissal affirmed under Chapter 14 standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Knight, 52 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2001) (Chapter 14 governs inmate pro se in forma pauperis suits)
- Scott v. Menchaca, 185 S.W.3d 543 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2006) (dismissal under Chapter 14 reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (definition and scope of abuse of discretion)
- White v. State, 37 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2001) (if inmate fails to state operative facts the court may assume suit is substantially similar and frivolous)
- Bell v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice–Inst. Div., 962 S.W.2d 156 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998) (same principle regarding operative facts requirement)
- Douglas v. Moffett, 418 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (trial court may dismiss without a hearing when inmate fails to comply with §14.004)
- Hickman v. Adams, 35 S.W.3d 120 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (trial court may dismiss claim before or after service if frivolous)
- Johnson v. Lynaugh, 796 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. 1990) (affirmance may be sustained on any correct legal theory)
- Brewer v. Simental, 268 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008) (inmate must comply with Chapter 14 or face dismissal)