Lakeith Amir-Sharif v. Dedric D. Bostic and Betty Hightower, 01-15-00697-CV

Background

Plaintiff Lakeith Amir‑Sharif, a Texas inmate, sued prison employees alleging they confiscated and destroyed his personal property during intake at the Holliday Unit (items included medications, asthma pumps, toiletries, law books, pictures).
He alleged federal and state due process violations, Eighth Amendment, Equal Protection, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, Texas Theft Liability Act claims, and conspiracy; he sought damages.
The trial court dismissed most claims under Chapter 14 (inmate‑suit exhaustion and frivolous‑suit provisions), leaving the Theft Liability Act claim against officer Dedric Bostic and a conspiracy claim against Bostic and Betty Hightower for jury trial.
The jury found for defendants (no conversion under the Theft Liability Act; no conspiracy/retaliation). The court entered judgment and denied Amir‑Sharif’s post‑trial motions.
On appeal, Amir‑Sharif challenged the Chapter 14 dismissals, the legal and factual sufficiency of the jury verdict, evidentiary exclusions, denial of additional witnesses/discovery, and denial of JNOV/new trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by dismissing non‑tried claims under Chapter 14 (exhaustion/frivolous)	Amir‑Sharif argued the court wrongly dismissed his constitutional and other claims	Defendants argued claims were not exhausted in TDCJ grievance, and related claims had no arguable basis	Dismissal affirmed: grievance only raised theft/conspiracy re: property; other defendants/claims not exhausted; post‑deprivation remedy bars due‑process claim
Sufficiency of evidence that Bostic unlawfully appropriated/destroyed property	Amir‑Sharif argued record shows policy violations and supports conversion liability	Defendants presented testimony and stipulations that no unlawful appropriation or policy violation occurred	Affirmed: evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support jury’s findings for defendants
Sufficiency of evidence of conspiracy/retaliation	Amir‑Sharif contended facts support conspiracy and retaliation findings	Defendants denied misconduct; witnesses credited by jury	Affirmed: jury resolution not against great weight; insufficiency arguments fail
Whether trial court abused discretion in excluding witnesses/evidence, denying discovery, and denying JNOV/new trial	Amir‑Sharif argued excluded witnesses/roster/affidavits would corroborate his account and exclusion harmed his case	Defendants argued proffer was lacking and excluded evidence would be cumulative or speculative	Affirmed: exclusions were within discretion; appellant failed to proffer substance or show harm; JNOV/new trial properly denied

Key Cases Cited

Bell v. Texas Dep’t of Crim. Justice–Inst’l Div., 962 S.W.2d 156 (Tex. App. 1998) (Chapter 14 exhaustion/dismissal standard for inmate suits)
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (U.S. 1984) (intentional deprivation of inmate property does not violate due process when adequate postdeprivation remedies exist)
Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (legal‑sufficiency review framework)
Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. 1986) (factual‑sufficiency standard; setting aside verdict only if against great weight and preponderance)
Gharda USA, Inc. v. Control Sols., Inc., 464 S.W.3d 338 (Tex. 2015) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Owens‑Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 972 S.W.2d 35 (Tex. 1998) (appellate review upholds evidentiary rulings if any legitimate basis exists)
Eberle v. Adams, 73 S.W.3d 322 (Tex. App. 2001) (jury may believe some witnesses and disbelieve others)
McCraw v. Maris, 828 S.W.2d 756 (Tex. 1992) (exclusion of cumulative evidence is not reversible error)
Gee v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 765 S.W.2d 394 (Tex. 1989) (appellant must show excluded evidence probably caused rendition of improper judgment)
Parker v. Miller, 860 S.W.2d 452 (Tex. App. 1993) (trial court may exclude cumulative evidence)