519 S.W.3d 658
Tex. App.2017Background
- Mark Walters, a Native American and former TDCJ inmate, sued Brad Livingston (individually and official capacity) and TDCJ alleging they substantially burdened his free exercise right by prohibiting him from personally smoking a sacred ceremonial pipe during religious ceremonies.
- Walters sought declaratory, injunctive, and damages relief (including attorney’s fees) and attempted to represent a putative class of 42 similarly situated inmates while proceeding pro se.
- TDCJ admitted it previously allowed inmate personal pipe-smoking but adopted a Chaplaincy policy (Policy No. 09.01, rev. 5, dated July 2012) restricting handling and smoking of the pipe to a chaplain/volunteer for security and medical reasons.
- Walters amended to add a breach-of-contract claim based on a 1998 Compromise and Settlement Agreement between TDCJ and another inmate (Yellowquill) that permitted ceremonial tobacco smoking in certain circumstances.
- TDCJ moved for summary judgment asserting (inter alia) lack of standing/mootness after Walters’s release and TRFRA statute-of-limitations; the trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the suit with prejudice.
- The appellate court affirmed in part (breach-of-contract and prospective TRFRA injunctive relief) and reversed/remanded in part (TRFRA damages and constitutional/due-process/declaratory claims).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / Mootness for injunctive relief and breach-of-contract claim | Walters argued he had a live controversy and could seek relief based on TDCJ policies and the Yellowquill agreement | TDCJ argued Walters’ release rendered injunctive claims moot and he was not a party or third-party beneficiary to Yellowquill agreement | Court: Walters lacks standing for prospective injunctive relief (moot) and lacks standing to enforce Yellowquill agreement (not a third-party beneficiary); affirmed on these claims |
| TRFRA damages statute of limitations | Walters argued his TRFRA claim accrued when policy actually burdened him and that limitations was not shown below | TDCJ argued one-year TRFRA limitations barred TRFRA damages and attempted to fix various accrual dates | Court: Trial court abused its discretion to the extent it dismissed TRFRA/constitutional/due-process claims on limitations — evidence did not establish accrual as matter of law and some limitation theories were raised only on appeal; reversed/remanded |
| Use of administrative meeting agenda as summary-evidence | Walters denied the agenda was competent summary-judgment evidence | TDCJ relied on an unsworn meeting agenda to fix accrual date | Court: Agenda was inadmissible/insufficient; could not support summary judgment |
| Application of limitations to non-TRFRA claims | Walters argued the cited one-year TRFRA limitations does not apply to constitutional or contract claims | TDCJ applied the one-year TRFRA period to all claims | Court: Statute cited applies only to TRFRA claims; trial court erred if it applied that limitations period to constitutional or contract claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Mr. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 690 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. 1985) (summary-judgment standards)
- Henkel v. Norman, 441 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. 2014) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Inman, 252 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2008) (standing requires concrete, particularized injury)
- MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Tex. Util. Elec. Co., 995 S.W.2d 647 (Tex. 1999) (third-party beneficiary principles)
- Casso v. Brand, 776 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. 1989) (all summary-judgment theories must be presented in writing to the trial court)
- City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. 1979) (allocation of burdens in summary-judgment proceedings)