Timothy Hays v. Chief Campos
13-15-00216-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 27, 2015Background
- Appellant Timothy Hays, a pro se incarcerated litigant, sued DeWitt County District Attorney Michael Sheppard and others claiming theft, conversion, fraud, conspiracy, and violation of RICO arising from seizure and forfeiture of his vehicle and property after his 2012 felony arrest and conviction.
- The DeWitt County DA’s office prosecuted asset-forfeiture proceedings under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 59, and the DA (Sheppard) moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (plea to the jurisdiction).
- The trial court granted dismissal, concluding the DA was entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity and/or sovereign/governmental immunity; it also found other jurisdictional defects (e.g., TTC A notice failure) and denied Hays’s motion for a bench warrant to attend the hearing.
- Appellee argues (1) prosecutorial acts (including initiating forfeiture) are absolutely immune; (2) Hays’s tort claims are intentional and not waived by the Texas Tort Claims Act; (3) RICO does not waive sovereign immunity; and (4) Hays failed to give statutorily required notice under the Tort Claims Act.
- The trial court also applied the Z.L.T. bench‑warrant factors (cost, security, claim substance, delayability, need for live testimony/demeanor, probability of success) and found Hays did not meet his burden to justify personal attendance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had jurisdiction over claims against the DA | Hays contends DA’s actions in forfeiture were wrongful and support tort/RICO claims | Sheppard argues absolute prosecutorial immunity bars suit; no waiver of sovereign immunity; TTC A notice lacking | Court held no jurisdiction: DA entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity; alternatively sovereign immunity and notice defects defeat jurisdiction |
| Whether DA’s initiation of asset forfeiture is a prosecutorial function | Hays: forfeiture actions may be challenged in tort/RICO | Sheppard: initiating forfeiture is prosecutorial (judicially‑intimate) and absolutely immune | Court treated forfeiture as prosecutorial function and applied absolute immunity |
| Whether tort claims (theft, conversion, fraud) fall within Tort Claims Act waiver | Hays: tort causes of action permissible against DA/County | Sheppard: claims are intentional torts excluded from TTC A waiver; §101.057 bars recovery | Court held intentional‑tort exclusion applies; sovereign immunity not waived |
| Whether RICO claim can be litigated against a governmental actor | Hays: RICO claim asserted against DA | Sheppard: RICO does not waive sovereign immunity; legislature provided no waiver | Court accepted that RICO does not waive sovereign immunity; claim barred |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying bench warrant | Hays sought to attend dismissal hearing in person | Sheppard: Hays’ motion lacked specificity; Z.L.T. factors weigh against transport (cost, low claim merit, no need for live testimony) | Court found no abuse of discretion; denial affirmed (Hays failed to meet burden) |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976) (prosecutors have absolute immunity for prosecutorial functions)
- Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (plaintiff bears burden to plead jurisdictional waiver against governmental units)
- Reata Constr. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371 (Tex. 2006) (sovereign immunity deprives courts of subject‑matter jurisdiction absent waiver)
- Franka v. Velasquez, 332 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. 2011) (operation of §101.106 and effect of asserting tort claims against government employees)
- In re Z.L.T., J.K.H.T., & Z.N.T., 124 S.W.3d 163 (Tex. 2003) (factors to consider when deciding whether to transport an inmate for civil proceedings)