Guy Sparkman v. Microsoft Corporation, SupportSpace, Inc. as Agent for Microsoft Corp., Omar Franco, as Agent for Microsoft Corp. and Robert Doe, as Agent for Microsoft Corp. and Karen Phillips
12-13-00175-CV
| Tex. App. | Apr 1, 2015Background
- Pro se appellant Guy Sparkman sued Microsoft and related defendants in Smith County County Court at Law No. 2; the case was dismissed and the court entered vexatious-litigant-related rulings; Sparkman appealed and the Court of Appeals issued a memorandum opinion and judgment on March 18, 2015 affirming.
- Sparkman filed a pro se Motion for Rehearing arguing the appellate memorandum made legal errors, omitted arguments, and violated his due process and equal protection rights.
- Central factual/procedural points in dispute: an order of recusal, appointment and oath of a visiting judge (Judge Knize), whether an affidavit of inability to pay was contested, and whether the trial court conducted required hearings before dismissal.
- The core legal dispute: constitutionality and application of Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 11 (vexatious litigant provisions) as applied to pro se litigants and whether it impermissibly chills the First Amendment right to petition, is overbroad/vague, or discriminates against pro se litigants.
- Sparkman argues the appellate court failed to address controlling authorities, mischaracterized the record (e.g., indigency contest), and applied the wrong level of scrutiny to First Amendment claims; he asks the Court of Appeals to rehear and reverse.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of recusal order / fraud in recusal | Sparkman: recusal order was based on a false/fraudulent controlling fact and is therefore void | Defendant: (implicit) recusal/order were valid and not void for fraud | Court did not reverse on this ground; appellate memorandum did not treat the fraud/recusal claim as dispositive and affirmed below |
| Visiting judge oath / appointment records | Sparkman: visiting judge lacked required oath/administrative file; issue may be raised on appeal; absence voids proceedings | Defendant: appointment and proceedings were proper (or record sufficient) | Appellate opinion did not find the lack of oath/record fatal to the judgment; no reversal granted |
| Constitutionality of Chapter 11 (First Amendment / right to petition) | Sparkman: Chapter 11 is facially and as-applied unconstitutional because it chills protected (even unsuccessful) petitions and warrants strict scrutiny | Defendant: Chapter 11 is constitutional; it targets abusive or frivolous litigation and does not reach protected petitioning | Appellate court held Chapter 11 not overbroad and did not include protected conduct within its prohibitions; statute upheld as applied |
| Equal protection / discrimination against pro se litigants | Sparkman: statute discriminatorily targets pro se plaintiffs (statutory definitions and application) and requires strict scrutiny | Defendant: statute is neutrally applied and not limited to pro se in operation | Appellate court rejected the discrimination claim and refused to apply strict scrutiny, upholding the statute's application |
| Due process / hearing & indigency contest | Sparkman: trial court dismissed without required notice/hearing; affidavit of inability to pay was uncontested and conclusive; summary dismissal denied due process | Defendant: record shows contest/adequate procedures (or dismissal was procedurally proper) | Appellate opinion found procedures sufficient (citing record) and did not reverse for lack of hearing; Sparkman asserts the court misstated/ignored record |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (Due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB, 536 U.S. 516 (First Amendment petition clause protects even some unsuccessful suits)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)
- Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (pleadings should not bar access to courts)
- Olmsted v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (quotation about government lawbreaking undermining rule of law)
- Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Assn., 389 U.S. 217 (characterization of petition right as precious liberty)
- Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (equal protection/constitutional claims regarding class-based bias)
- Sax v. Votteler, 648 S.W.2d 661 (Tex.) (Texas constitution protects access to courts for common-law causes of action)
- Creel v. District Attorney for Medina County, 818 S.W.2d 45 (Tex.) (due process requires notice and hearing before summary dismissal)
- Equitable Gen. Ins. Co. v. Yates, 684 S.W.2d 669 (Tex.) (uncontested affidavit of inability to pay is conclusive)
- Martin v. Martin, Martin & Richards, Inc., 989 S.W.2d 357 (Tex.) (procedural authority discussed by parties)