Ralph O. Douglas v. Marisa A. Moffett and Kyle A. Thornton
418 S.W.3d 336
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Ralph O. Douglas, a TDCJ inmate, filed suit pro se and in forma pauperis against TDCJ employees Moffett and Thornton after administrative grievances were denied.
- Douglas filed his district-court petition (with an unsworn declaration of indigence and a certified trust account statement) and the suit was dismissed as frivolous under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 14.
- Douglas filed a notice of appeal with an unsworn declaration of inability to pay costs but did not file on appeal the additional Chapter 14 required affidavit listing prior pro se filings or an updated certified inmate trust account statement covering the six months before the appeal.
- The Attorney General’s amicus brief pointed out Douglas’s failure to comply with Chapter 14 on appeal; Douglas relied instead on Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1 compliance.
- The court applied the 2011 amendments to Chapter 14 (effective Jan. 1, 2012), which extend Chapter 14’s requirements to appeals and original appellate proceedings, and dismissed the appeal for noncompliance without reaching the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chapter 14’s procedural requirements apply to appeals filed by inmates | Douglas: compliance with Rule 20.1 suffices; Chapter 14 should not bar appeal | State/AG: 2011 amendments extend Chapter 14 to appellate proceedings and require additional filings | Chapter 14 applies to appeals and appellate original proceedings |
| Whether an inmate must file an affidavit listing prior pro se suits when appealing in forma pauperis | Douglas: did not file but argued Rule 20.1 affidavit was enough | AG: must file the specific Chapter 14 affidavit of previous filings | Court: inmate must file the Chapter 14 affidavit of previous filings on appeal |
| Whether an inmate must file an updated certified trust-account statement when appealing | Douglas: relied on earlier trial-court statement and Rule 20.1 affidavit | AG: appellate filing must include a certified trust-account statement showing balance and 6-month activity at time of appeal | Court: certified trust-account statement for the appeal is required; failure permits dismissal |
| Remedy for failure to comply with Chapter 14 on appeal | Douglas: requested review on the merits | State: noncompliance warrants dismissal without reaching merits | Court: dismissed the appeal for noncompliance with Chapter 14; did not reach merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Nabelek v. Garrett, 94 S.W.3d 648 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (Chapter 14 previously recognized as inapplicable to appellate courts before amendment)
- Warner v. Glass, 135 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. 2004) (discussing standards for inmate filings and appeals)
- Bell v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice–Institutional Div., 962 S.W.2d 156 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998) (affidavit-of-previous-filings requirement serves to curb duplicative inmate litigation)
- Gowan v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 99 S.W.3d 319 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003) (trial court may summarily dismiss inmate suits for failure to comply with Chapter 14)
- Retzlaff v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 94 S.W.3d 650 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002) (Chapter 14 grants courts authority to summarily dismiss prisoner suits)
- Hughes v. Massey, 65 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2001) (requirement to support pauper status reduces incentive to file frivolous inmate suits)
- Kendrick v. Lynaugh, 804 S.W.2d 153 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1990) (trial court need not suggest amendments before dismissing an inmate claim under Chapter 14)