Richard Tobias v. SLP Brownwood LLC D/B/A Cross Country Healthcare Center, the Owners of SLP Management, Inc., and Dr. N. Nigalye, 11-19-00247-CV

Pro se plaintiff Richard Tobias sued SLP Brownwood LLC (d/b/a Cross Country Healthcare Center), the owners of SLP Management, Inc., and Dr. N. Nigalye alleging that in March 2017 they caused his involuntary removal/transfer after accusing him of a fight and arranging a municipal order and sheriff transport without notice.
Tobias’s petition asserted multiple causes of action: violations of Chapter 574 (Health & Safety Code), Title 8 (Property Code landlord/tenant), Title 4 (Health Facilities), the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and constitutional due process/equal protection claims.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, arguing Tobias’s causes of action had no basis in law or fact; the trial court granted the motion at a May 23, 2019 hearing.
Tobias appealed, raising three issues: denial of his continuance motion, error in granting the Rule 91a dismissal, and noncompliance with Estates Code § 1151.351.
The court affirmed: the continuance was properly denied (motion unverified and alternative telephonic option offered); Rule 91a dismissal was proper because Tobias’s pleadings failed to allege legally cognizable claims (no statutory private cause of action, no state action for § 1983/constitutional claims, and conclusory pleading for ADA/other statutes); the third issue was forfeited because it was not raised below.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of continuance of Rule 91a hearing	Tobias said he lacked transportation and needed continuance to clarify/plead	Motion was unverified and trial court offered telephonic participation; Rule 251 requires verified facts	Denial not an abuse of discretion; motion noncompliant and alternative offered
Rule 91a dismissal of petition	Tobias argued his pleadings stated causes under Health & Safety Code ch. 574, Property Code, ADA, §1983, and constitutional claims	Defendants argued pleadings lack legal or factual basis under Rule 91a; no private cause under ch. 574; no state action for §1983; claims conclusory	De novo review: dismissal affirmed — pleadings fail to state viable claims or meet Rule 91a standards
Claim under Estates Code §1151.351 (ward rights)	Tobias raised noncompliance with ward bill of rights on appeal	Defendants noted Tobias did not plead or present this claim at trial	Issue not preserved for appeal; forfeited

BMC Software Belg., N.V. v. Marchand, 83 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2002) (standard of review and deference for continuance rulings)
In re Nitla S.A. de C.V., 92 S.W.3d 419 (Tex. 2002) (limits on appellate substitution of judgment for trial court)
Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150 (Tex. 2004) (abuse-of-discretion review for continuances)
Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2004) (test for arbitrary trial-court action)
Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) (absolute judicial immunity for judicial acts)
Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982) (private nursing-facility discharge decisions do not constitute state action)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive pleading challenge)
City of Dallas v. Sanchez, 494 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. 2016) (Rule 91a de novo review; look solely to pleadings)