514 S.W.3d 763
Tex. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Mark Walters, a former TDCJ inmate, sued Brad Livingston (Executive Director, TDCJ) under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA), alleging a TDCJ policy substantially burdened his Native American religious exercise.
- Walters complied with TRFRA notice requirements and filed suit after the required notice period; TDCJ implemented a remedy (transferred Walters to an accommodating unit) only after Walters filed suit.
- After removal to federal court and resolution of federal claims, the TRFRA claim was remanded to state court; Walters amended to seek only statutory damages, costs, and attorney’s fees under TRFRA.
- The Executive Director filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting TRFRA §110.006(e) bars any action by a person whose substantial burden has been cured, so the trial court lacked jurisdiction; the trial court granted the plea and dismissed Walters’s suit.
- The Texas court of appeals reviewed de novo whether §110.006(e) precludes suit already filed when the government later cures the burden and whether the trial court therefore had jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §110.006(e) bars a TRFRA suit when the government cures the burden after the suit is filed | Walters: §110.006(e) prevents a person from bringing suit after the agency has cured during the notice period only; it does not strip jurisdiction once a suit is already filed | Executive Director: Once an agency implements a remedy under §110.006 (i.e., cures), §110.006(e) nullifies the claim at any time, depriving the court of jurisdiction even for pending suits | Court: §110.006(e) bars initiating (bringing) a suit after a cure, but does not remove jurisdiction for suits already properly filed; trial court erred in dismissing Walters’s claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (plea to the jurisdiction challenges court’s authority and is reviewed de novo)
- Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standards for plea to the jurisdiction and when courts may consider evidence)
- Galbraith Eng’g Consultants, Inc. v. Pachuca, 290 S.W.3d 863 (Tex. 2009) (interpret statutes by their plain language)
- Presidio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Scott, 309 S.W.3d 927 (Tex. 2010) (read statutory text according to common meaning absent contrary intent)
- Texas Citizens for a Safe Future & Clean Water v. Railroad Comm’n, 336 S.W.3d 619 (Tex. 2011) (avoid construing provisions in isolation; consider statutory scheme)
- TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Co. v. Combs, 340 S.W.3d 432 (Tex. 2011) (presume legislature chose words carefully; do not add or omit language)