In Re Douglas
333 S.W.3d 273
Tex. App.2010Background
- Douglas, an inmate, filed a petition for bill of review to set aside a 2004 judgment in consolidated cases against Jimmie W. Jones and Christine Jones.
- Trial court declared him a vexatious litigant under Chapter 11 and dismissed his bill-of-review petition as frivolous/malicious under Chapter 14.
- Douglas appealed both the vexatious-litigant finding and the Chapter 14 dismissal.
- The court sustained the vexatious-litigant finding (on its own motion) and upheld dismissal under Chapter 14, with noted prior vexatious-litigant history and failed service/notice issues.
- Douglas had prior related litigation stemming from a 2002 theft conviction and a 2004 bankruptcy-related determination favoring the Joneses; he did not serve the Joneses with his 2006 petition for bill of review.
- The appeal raises whether the trial court properly used Chapter 11 to declare vexatious status and whether Chapter 14 dismissal was proper given inmate-indigency procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion declaring Douglas vexatious | Douglas | Court properly found no reasonable likelihood of success and prior vexatious history | No abuse; vexatious finding affirmed |
| Whether dismissal under Chapter 14 was proper | Douglas | Claim frivolous/malicious; affidavit deficiency; no meritorious ground | Dismissal affirmed; no arguable basis in law |
| Whether failure to hold a required hearing affected outcome | Douglas | Harmless error; no prejudice shown | Harmless error; affirmed on merits |
| Whether judicial misconduct claim warrants reversal | Douglas | No proven bias or prejudicial harm | Judicial misconduct claim rejected; no reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (bill-of-review standards and substantial evidence standards)
- Petro-Chem. Transp., Inc. v. Carroll, 514 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. 1974) (meritorious-ground-of-appeal concept for bill of review)
- Spurlock v. Schroedter, 88 S.W.3d 733 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002) (inmate pleadings; standard for frivolous claims)
- University of Texas v. Morris, 344 S.W.2d 426 (Tex. 1961) (inherent power of courts to control vexatious litigation)
- Birdo v. Holbrook, 775 S.W.2d 411 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1989) (inherent power/apportionment of jurisdiction pre-Chapter 11)