Luis Mendoza, TDCJ 783576 v. Brad Livingston, 13-14-00705-CV

Background

Plaintiff Luis A. Mendoza, a Texas state prisoner, sued TDCJ officials alleging deprivation of property, retaliation for filing grievances, and liberty deprivations based on a purportedly "tainted" prison file (gang suspicion and a fabricated life-endangerment entry).
Facts: Mendoza was handcuffed and temporarily isolated; his personal property was taken and later returned incomplete; he filed Step 1/2 grievances and alleges retaliation (transfer, a forged life-endangerment, and a broken typewriter with inadequate compensation).
Procedural posture: The trial court dismissed Mendoza's suit as frivolous and with prejudice under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 14.003; Mendoza appeals seeking reversal and remand.
Mendoza asserts three principal legal theories: (1) procedural due process violation for deprivation of property without adequate post-deprivation remedy; (2) First Amendment retaliation for use of the grievance process; and (3) Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection and liberty interests harmed by false entries in his prison file without notice/hearing.
Mendoza also sought a default (nihil dicit) judgment after alleging defendants appeared but failed to answer the amended complaint; the trial court denied that relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Due process for deprivation of property	Mendoza: deprivation of commissary/property without adequate compensation or meaningful remedy violates the Fourteenth Amendment; post-deprivation process was inadequate	Defendants: (as reflected by trial-court dismissal) the claims are frivolous / post-deprivation remedies suffice (implicit)	Trial court dismissed action as frivolous; appellant argues dismissal was error and requests remand
2. Retaliation for filing grievances (First Amendment)	Mendoza: filing grievances is protected activity; subsequent transfer, placement of life-endangerment, and damage to property were retaliatory and causally connected	Defendants: (implicit) actions were proper security/penological decisions and not motivated by protected speech; claims lack merit	Trial court dismissed as frivolous; appellant contends sufficient facts pleaded to state a retaliation claim
3. Liberty interest / contaminated prison file and lack of notice	Mendoza: false gang affiliation and fabricated life-endangerment entry deprived him of liberty/privileges without notice or hearing (equal protection, due process)	Defendants: (implicit) prison record entries were justified for security and do not give rise to a protected liberty interest warranting process	Trial court dismissed as frivolous; appellant asserts the tainted file causes ongoing atypical, significant hardships and merits adjudication
4. Default (nihil dicit) judgment & dismissal procedure	Mendoza: defendants appeared but did not answer the amended complaint; he sought nihil dicit default and final disposition; denial of default and dismissal without hearing denied his right to be heard	Defendants: opposed setting/hearing; sought review of a prior electronic hearing (no timely merits pleadings)	Trial court denied nihil dicit default and dismissed case as frivolous; appellant alleges abuse of discretion and denial of right to be heard

Key Cases Cited

Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (post-deprivation remedy requirement for negligent deprivation of property)
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (no due-process violation where adequate post-deprivation remedy exists; importance of compensation for destroyed/lost prisoner property)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (standard for materiality of facts in civil litigation)
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (prisoners retain First Amendment rights subject to legitimate penological interests)
Mount Healthy City Sch. Bd. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (causation and retaliation framework where protected conduct is a motivating factor)
Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (standard for when prison conditions impose atypical and significant hardships implicating liberty interests)