Jonathan Donaldson v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division
355 S.W.3d 722
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Donaldson, an inmate, filed a pro se in forma pauperis suit under Chapter Fourteen after a prison cell search led to the confiscation of about twelve photos of his girlfriend by Patricia Chamberlain, a TDCJ employee.
- Donaldson alleged a federal due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment and a claim under the Texas Theft Liability Act based on the confiscation and loss of the photos.
- The trial court dismissed the suit upon finding Donaldson’s unsworn declaration of indigency false, and assessed costs against him under Chapter Fourteen.
- Donaldson attached an inmate trust account statement showing funds in his account at the time of filing, leading the court to conclude he was not indigent for purposes of Chapter Fourteen.
- The case was appealed, and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, addressing indigency, costs, and related procedural issues.
- The court discussed permissible fees and costs that may be charged by the district clerk and sheriff’s office under state law and concluded the collection of those costs was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indigency declaration and dismissal | Donaldson argues the court erred in dismissing for false indigency. | Chamberlain argues Donaldson was not indigent and knowingly false declared poverty. | Dismissal proper; indigency false. |
| Legality of costs and fees assessed | Donaldson contends only certain fees (filing, records, court reporter) could be charged. | District clerk may collect a broader set of fees authorized by state law. | Costs properly collected. |
| Hearing on indigency | Donaldson contends he was denied a hearing to determine indigency. | Section 14.003(c) discretionary; hearing not required. | Hearing unnecessary; discretionary determination supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hickson v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996) (abuse of discretion standard for IFP dismissal)
- Lentworth v. Trahan, 981 S.W.2d 720 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998) (guiding discretion in IFP dismissals)
- Johnson v. Lynaugh, 796 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. 1990) (abuse of discretion standard in dismissal posture)
- Birdo v. Ament, 814 S.W.2d 808 (Tex. App.—Waco 1991) (broad discretion to dismiss unmeritorious claims)
- Montana v. Patterson, 894 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1994) (sanctions and dismissal considerations for prisoners' suits)
- McClain v. Terry, 320 S.W.3d 394 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2010) (indigency in inmate IFP context; funds in trust account negate indigence)
- Allred v. Lowry, 597 S.W.2d 353 (Tex. 1980) (indigent status; trust account considerations)