in Re: Billy Ross Sims
12-15-00190-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 29, 2015Background
- Relator Billy R. Sims, an incarcerated pro se plaintiff, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit in Anderson County, Texas, and submitted an affidavit of inability to pay costs (IFP).
- The district clerk assigned Cause No. 3-42362 and Sims attempted to obtain service of process; he claims poor communication from the clerk's office.
- Judge Mark A. Calhoon signed an Order of Dismissal under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 14, deeming the claims "frivolous," dismissed the action without prejudice, and assessed inmate fee collection from Sims’ trust account.
- The order directed the TDCJ Litigation Support Program to withdraw payments from Sims’ inmate trust fund (ITF) to satisfy $274 in fees; Sims contends his only income is VA disability benefits.
- Sims argues (1) no contest was filed to his IFP affidavit so the trial court lost jurisdiction to impose fees (citing Rios), (2) VA benefits are exempt from attachment/seizure under federal law, and (3) the dismissal occurred without the due-process hearing required by chapter 14.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could impose post-filing fees after an unchallenged IFP affidavit | Sims: no contest to IFP; under Rios the court lost jurisdiction to impose costs; order is void | Court (via order): dismissed as frivolous and directed fee collection under ch. 14 | Mandamus sought: Sims argues the order is void; appellate relief appropriate for void judgments (mandamus) |
| Whether VA disability benefits in the ITF may be garnished to satisfy court fees | Sims: VA benefits are statutorily immune from attachment/levy; seizure violates federal law | Order directs TDCJ to withdraw amounts from ITF to pay fees | Sims contends the withdrawal violated federal veterans’ protections and caused irreparable harm; relief requested to return funds |
| Whether the trial court complied with chapter 14’s due-process/hearing requirements before finding claims frivolous | Sims: ch.14 requires a hearing (14.003(c), 14.008); no factfinding occurred; dismissal at pleading stage improper | Court labeled claims frivolous and dismissed without an on-the-record hearing | Sims contends dismissal without hearing violated procedural due process and chapter 14; argues constitutional infirmity as applied |
| Whether pro se complaint meets notice-pleading and dismissal-as-frivolous standards | Sims: complaint met notice pleading; pro se complaints entitled to liberal construction; dismissal unsupported by findings | Court concluded claims were frivolous under ch.14(a)(2) | Sims argues dismissal was legally incorrect at pleading stage and made in bad faith; seeks mandamus to set aside order |
Key Cases Cited
- Rios v. Calhoon, 889 S.W.2d 257 (Tex. 1994) (IFP affidavit unchallenged: trial court lacks authority later to impose costs)
- Department of Health & Hum. Servs. v. Davis, 616 F.2d 828 (5th Cir. 1980) (veterans’ benefits exempt from attachment/seizure)
- Harris v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 806 F. Supp. 627 (S.D. Tex. 1992) (state courts bound to follow federal law)
- Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (pleading standards require only notice; do not require detailed factual proof at pleading stage)
- Moore v. Henry, 960 S.W.2d 82 (Tex. App. 1996) (appellate review of inmate in forma pauperis dismissals where no factfinding hearing occurred)
- In re Canales, 52 S.W.3d 698 (Tex. 2001) (legal questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo)
- Garrett v. Borden, 283 S.W.3d 852 (Tex. 2009) (procedural note on statutory terms and ordinary meaning)