Robert C. Morris v. Sherri Milligan
12-14-00332-CV
| Tex. App. | Sep 4, 2015Background
- Appellant Robert C. Morris (pro se, incarcerated) appeals the dismissal of his suit by the 349th Judicial District Court of Anderson County, Texas; he filed a pro se reply brief asking for reversal and remand.
- Trial-court dismissal cited Morris’s alleged failure to file a declaration about prior filings under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §14.004; both parties agree the dismissal ground was stated in the order.
- Appellees conceded Morris complied with §14.004 but argued (in the trial court and on appeal) alternative Chapter 14 grounds — chiefly failure to exhaust administrative remedies under §14.005.
- Morris contends appellees waived any challenge to Issues 1–3 by not briefing them, and that the court must act only on the grounds stated in its order.
- Morris argues the grievance process could not fairly require naming every defendant or exhausting distinct claims against different officials given TDCJ procedures (grievance timing, limited grievances per week, Step 1/Step 2 process), and that he properly exhausted the operative facts as required by statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Morris) | Defendant's Argument (Appellees) | Held (in this brief) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for failure to file a §14.004 declaration was proper | Morris filed the required declaration; dismissal on that ground was erroneous | Trial court dismissed on that ground (but appellees concede §14.004 was met) | Morris asks reversal and remand; brief asserts trial court abused discretion |
| Whether appellees may rely on alternative Chapter 14 grounds (e.g., §14.005 exhaustion) when order specified §14.004 | Court orders must be enforced per their four corners; appellees cannot rely on unadopted alternative grounds after dismissing for §14.004 | Appellees argue dismissal can be upheld on any meritorious Chapter 14 theory (failure to exhaust) | Morris contends alternative-ground argument is impermissible; brief seeks reversal |
| Whether Morris exhausted administrative remedies under §14.005/Tex. Gov’t Code §501.008 | Morris contends he exhausted as to the operative facts and provided required affidavit/decision; statutes do not require exhaustion as to every defendant or every distinct claim | Appellees argue proper exhaustion requires filing timely grievances as to all claims and parties | Morris argues statutory text and policy defeat appellees’ broader exhaustion requirement; brief asserts appellees’ position is without merit |
| Whether appellees waived issues 1–3 by failing to brief them | Morris argues appellees did not respond to Issues 1–3 and thus waived those arguments | Appellees did not address these issues in their brief | Morris requests the court take judicial notice of waiver and consider those issues favorable to him |
Key Cases Cited
- Brewer v. Simental, 268 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008) (purpose of written-decision exhaustion requirement is to allow administrative review before suit)
- City of Hurst v. City of Colleyville, 501 S.W.2d 140 (Tex. Civ. App.—Fort Worth 1973) (courts act through their orders)
- Ex parte Glover, 701 S.W.2d 639 (Tex. 1985) (order terms tested by the four corners of the order)
- Ex parte Slavin, 412 S.W.2d 43 (Tex. 1967) (orders must be clear, specific, and unambiguous)
- Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 S.W.2d 476 (Tex. 1995) (if a judgment does not specify grounds, it may be affirmed on any meritorious theory)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 385 F.3d 503 (5th Cir. 2004) (prisoner must give administrators fair opportunity to address grievances; identification of individuals may be required in practice)
- Gates v. Cook, 376 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2004) (prison officials who act on grievances cannot later rely on technical defaults when they reviewed the grievance substance)