Kenneth Craig Miller v. Gregg County, Texas, 06-17-00091-CV

Miller, a Texas citizen, served written Public Information Act (TPIA) requests to Gregg County for phone records and dispatch recordings relating to county deputies and East Mountain officials; Gregg County provided minimal responses and did not request an AG ruling.
Miller filed a statutory mandamus suit under Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.321 seeking disclosure; Gregg County filed a plea to the jurisdiction.
At the plea hearing, parties disputed whether Gregg County possessed responsive records (particularly Sgt. Tony Monsivais’s phone logs) and whether Miller had properly delivered two separate requests (one earlier request allegedly lost).
The trial judge granted Gregg County’s plea, concluding Gregg County produced all responsive documents or showed none existed, and dismissed Miller’s mandamus request and other claims “with prejudice.”
Miller appeals, arguing the trial court improperly resolved disputed jurisdictional facts at the plea stage, shifted burdens of proof to him, and issued advisory merits rulings (including dismissal with prejudice) that exceed what a plea to the jurisdiction may accomplish.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Did the trial court err by resolving disputed jurisdictional facts at the plea to the jurisdiction?	Miller: Yes — the court impermissibly weighed evidence and resolved fact disputes; plea cannot decide contested jurisdictional facts.	Gregg County: No — it presented evidence showing no responsive records; court may decide as a matter of law.	Appellant argues error; standard (Miranda) forbids resolving disputed jurisdictional facts on a plea. (Appeal argues reversal required.)
2. Did the trial court err by dismissing Miller’s mandamus claim "with prejudice"?	Miller: Yes — a plea to the jurisdiction may only dispose for lack of jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate merits or dismiss with prejudice.	Gregg County: Dismissal proper because no records exist and sovereign immunity bars damages.	Appellant contends dismissal with prejudice was improper; plea cannot produce merits adjudication.
3. Did the court err by dismissing injunctive/declaratory/damages claims Miller did not seek?	Miller: Yes — rulings on claims not pleaded constitute advisory opinions outside court's jurisdiction.	Gregg County: Those remedies are implicated by the pleadings/TRCP statement.	Appellant asserts those dismissals were advisory and improper.

Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (trial court may not resolve disputed jurisdictional facts on a plea to the jurisdiction)
Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2000) (plea to the jurisdiction is dilatory and not a merits determination)
Decker v. Dunbar, 200 S.W.3d 807 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006) (dismissal with prejudice is an adjudication on the merits)
Kallinen v. City of Houston, 462 S.W.3d 25 (Tex. 2015) (TPIA contains explicit waiver enabling mandamus to compel disclosure)
City of El Paso v. Collins, 483 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2016) (burden shifting analysis when governmental entity fails to produce evidence contesting plaintiff's factual allegations)
Williamson County v. Heckman, 368 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010) (plea to the jurisdiction challenges authority to decide merits)
Simmons v. Kuzmich, 166 S.W.3d 342 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005) (TPIA mandamus requires showing noncompliance to obtain relief)
City of New Braunfels v. Allen, 132 S.W.3d 157 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004) (trial court should not weigh evidence on plea to the jurisdiction)
Thomas v. Cornyn, 71 S.W.3d 473 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002) (burden placed on governmental body under §552.321 mandamus)