James J. White v. Larry Smith, Ira Earls and Fnu Benson
591 S.W.3d 198
Tex. App.2019Background
- In late 2012 White’s son disclosed that White’s father had sexually abused him; the allegation was reported to a social worker on May 28, 2013, who notified the Smith County Sheriff’s Office.
- On June 15, 2013, White shot and killed his father; White was subsequently incarcerated for that homicide.
- On January 19, 2016 White (pro se) sued the Smith County Sheriff Larry Smith and deputies Ira Earls and Clint Benson, asserting claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act, various provisions of the Texas Constitution, and Articles 5.04 and 5.045 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, and seeking monetary and exemplary damages.
- Defendants moved for traditional summary judgment asserting (inter alia) that White’s tort claims were time-barred, that no private cause of action exists under the Texas Constitution or the cited criminal-procedure provisions, and that official immunity and statutory language negate liability.
- The trial court granted summary judgment and ordered White to take nothing and to pay costs; on appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the summary-judgment dismissal but sua sponte deleted the award of costs because White had filed an uncontested affidavit of inability to pay and there was no Rule 145(f) hearing or order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations for tort/Tort Claims Act claim | White: accrual window was May–June 2013; four-year SOL or fiduciary-duty theory makes claim timely | Defendants: claims under Tort Claims Act/PI/death are governed by two-year SOL; time-barred | Held: TTC Act/tort claims barred by two-year SOL; fiduciary/4-year theory not preserved at trial |
| State-constitution claim (money damages) | White: Texas Constitution violations justify monetary relief | Defendants: Texas law affords no private cause of action for damages under state constitution | Held: No private cause of action for monetary damages for Texas constitutional violations; claim dismissed |
| Statutory claims based on Articles 5.04 & 5.045 (criminal procedure) | White: officers breached statutory duties (e.g., notice in art. 5.04) and thus are liable | Defendants: statutes do not create private right; Article 5.045/5.054 limits civil liability for officers | Held: No clear legislative intent to imply private cause of action; statutes do not authorize damages; summary judgment for defendants |
| Taxation of costs (Rule 145) | White: filed affidavit of inability to pay, so cannot be taxed without 145(f) order/hearing | Defendants/Trial Ct: costs were taxed against White in final judgment | Held: Costs award void—no Rule 145(f) order or hearing; appellate court deleted costs provision |
Key Cases Cited
- Frost Nat’l Bank v. Fernandez, 315 S.W.3d 494 (Tex. 2010) (defendant entitled to summary judgment by negating an essential element or proving an affirmative defense)
- Simulis, L.L.C. v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 439 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (after defendant’s prima facie showing, burden shifts to plaintiff to raise fact issue)
- Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, 289 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. 2009) (review summary-judgment evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Mayes, 236 S.W.3d 754 (Tex. 2007) (genuine-issue standard—reasonable jurors could differ)
- Brown v. De La Cruz, 156 S.W.3d 560 (Tex. 2004) (implying a private cause of action requires clear legislative intent)
- City of Beaumont v. Bouillion, 896 S.W.2d 143 (Tex. 1995) (no private cause of action for money damages under Texas Constitution)
- City of San Antonio v. City of Boerne, 111 S.W.3d 22 (Tex. 2003) (statutory construction requires review of entire act to discern legislative intent)
- University of Texas Sys. v. Courtney, 946 S.W.2d 464 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1997) (state constitutional claims do not create monetary-damages remedy)
- Campbell v. Wilder, 487 S.W.3d 146 (Tex. 2016) (uncontested affidavit of inability to pay is conclusive)
- Phillips v. Bramlett, 407 S.W.3d 229 (Tex. 2013) (appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review void rulings)
- Doan v. TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP, 542 S.W.3d 794 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018) (appellate court must declare or vacate void trial rulings)
- Royal Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Ragsdale, 273 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (jurisdictional matters are fundamental and may be considered sua sponte)