*1 Wе sustain to the federal statute. ed Don Michael WATKINS
third issue. $1937.00, Appellant, issue, ar fourth Telecheck In its v. denying its the trial court erred gues the issue of for directed verdict on motion Texas, Appellee. The STATE cause of because the the FCRA violations No. 10-07-00001-CV. pleaded and Elkins did action was not this a trial amendment. Within obtain Texas, Appeals single issue, provided Telecheck has Waco. au any legal citation to the record or required by the Texas Rules thority as is May Tex.R.App. P. Appellate Procedure. See 38.1(h). Telecheck has failed Because so, inadequately
do the issue is briefed In re
presents nothing for review. See
A.W.P., (Tex.App. S.W.3d pet.).
Dallas no
Having exemplary determined the dam- reversed, now
age award must be we must appropriate disposition
consider the this Procedure Appellate
case. Texas Rule of
44.1(b) a partial allows this Court to order only part if the error affects
remand
judgment part separable and that with- parties. See Tex.
out unfairness
R.App. 44.1(b). However, the issues of exemplary damages
malice and are not of the case.
separable from the remainder Williams, 832; at also 207 S.W.3d see
See (Gonza- Co., at
Ford Motor 967 S.W.2d
lez, by Hecht and concurring, joined J. JJ).
Abbott, disposition Because our requires the entire
the third issue trial, we do
case be remanded for new remaining issues
not address Telecheck’s recovery complains
in which it of double prejudgment interest. See
P. 47.1. judgment trial court’s reverse the
We con- proceedings for further
and remand opinion.
sistent with pro se. Bastrop, Don
Michael *2 738 Segrest, County
John McLennan of the contest pay. W. We notified Watkins Waco, Atty., 27, appellee. requesting Dist. for on of ad- March submission days. 21 On ditional evidence within GRAY, Before Justice Chief Justice 29, again March that we notified Watkins VANCE, and Justice REYNA. duе, April on filing past fee was and responded by calling he our attention ORDER pending Affidavit. He did not submit PER CURIAM. to our response additional evidence in re- quest. Michael Don who is incarcerat- facility, ed in a federal correctional filed a record, 20, April reporter’s On we filed a 18, 2006, notice of on December preparation which shows the cost judgment from a in a forfeiture was $52.
in 414th District Court of McLennan 3, County. January On the Clerk notified Our initial addresses the timeli- inquiry filing Watkins that fee of was $125 Supreme ness of the Affidаvit. Our past paid due and should be within ten file has held that the failure to such days. January On the District Clerk may be jurisdictional affidavit is and not County McLennan notified us that Stores, corrected. v. Wal-Mart Hood clerk’s record had not filed been because Inc., (Tex.2007); Higgins S.W.3d preparation paid, the cost of had not been Office, 193 County v. Randall Sheriff’s sending copy of the letter to Watkins. (Tex.2006). Thus, find that we S.W.3d 898 day, our him On same Clerk notified before us. properly Affidavit is pay arrangements that he should or make We next address the timеliness for the clerk’s record within 21 Appellate provisions contest under the days. January again On we once noti- Rule 20. was filed Because the Affidavit filing past fied Watkins that our fee was court, in set a appellate our Clerk paid days. due and should be within ten deadline for a contest. 20, 2007, February On Watkins filed 20.1(d)(2)(B). the District Clerk Because in Support court an “Affidavit of Motion to allowed, it filed her contest within the time Pauperis.” Proceed Forma On Febru- 20.1(e). timely. Id. ary copy we forwarded a of the Affida- vit to thе District and the court Clerk to our decision Finally, we turn reporter and stated that contest of the 20.1(h). The bur Id. about the Affidavit. days. Affidavit within 14 must filed Id. with Watkins. proof den of rests 12, the District On March Clerk (“If filed, party who 20.1(g) a contest affidavit, alleg filed contest of Watkins’s the affidavit’s prove filed the affidavit must ing that she received notice of the Affidavit instance, we re allegations.”). In this on that the estimate for the will decide quested additional evidence and $50, and that cost of the clerk’s record is the Affidavit the contest basеd on pauper. alleges is not a She also Id. timely other filed documents. timely the Affidavit was not (when 20.1(h)(2), (3); 20.1(g) id. see also appeal” “with or before the notice of incarcerated, must be the affidavit party is wrong it was filed with the clerk. evidence). considered as Finally, right to she asks that Watkins’s that the contest is payment of costs Watkins contends proceed without advance did the District Clerk be denied and a date set which he must sufficient because GRAY, Justice, dissenting. However, con- Chief it under oath. “the TOM not file 20.1(e). test need be sworn.” Id. to an order opinion response This rec- are: the clerk’s The costs $50 majority the Court which by a issued record, ord, reporter’s $125 $52 *3 ap- to the district clerk’s contest sustains Affidavit appellate filing for the fee. The i.e., of denies indigency, affidavit pellant’s within that Watkins received income shows appellant. indigency status 12 the the last months. He describes and amount as: Industries source “Unicor BACKGROUND
$2,500 information year.” Based on the us, pay we find that can before Watkins 18, Watkins, acting 2006 On December 20.1(k). the costs. will some of Id. We attorney being while incarcerat- as his own to payment among those officials allocate prison, notice of in a Federal filed a ed payment by requiring due Wat- whom judgment 414th District appeal of of the the costs record pay kins to of the clerk’s the County ordering McLennan Court of reporter’s by waiving the and record $1,837.00.1 affidavit of forfeiture of No appellate filing the fee. id. See filed district clerk indigence was with the the Payment for clerk’s record is due clerk of at that time. or with the this Court County the District Clerk of McLennan 3, January 2007 a the notice of copy On days 45 after of this order. within the date with the was appeal filed district clerk If clerk’s payment Id. not made for the as forwarded to this Court and docketed time, that appeal record within will be this for 2007. the first Court prosecution. dismissed for want of Id. 3, January 2007 also notified On this Court 37.3(b). Payment reporter’s for the record that a in the appellant fifing fee Santana, is due to Teresa Court Official was amount of due and should $125.00 Court, Reporter 414th District days to paid prevent within 10 dismissal days order. within 90 after the date of this proceeding. this specific exemption, Absent the Clerk 29, January corre- we received On of the must fees at the filing Court collect County from McLennan spondence filing. time a document is for presented office the clerk’s rec- District Clerk’s Tex.R.App. 12.1(b); P., Appendix Id. Or- filed to the fact ord had been due 21, 1998); Fees see Regarding (July der paid appellant, had Tex.R.App. TexApp. (Waco) 5;P. also 10th date, this the clerk of costs. On 6; Tex. Loe. R. Ann. Gov’t Code notified the clerk’s Watkins 2005). (Vernon 51.207(b), §§ 51.941 To had not been be- apparently record necessary the extent under these cir- make pay had or cause Watkins failed cumstances, suspend and order we the rule pay the clerk’s fee arrangements filing to write off all fees the Clerk gave of the record. The clerk preparation 2;P. case. see In re William- days of the after the date son, 10-07-00032-CV, No. 2007 WL pay make arrangements or letter Feb.14, 2007, (Tex.App.-Waco orig. notify the clerk’s fee the Court C.J.). (Gray, proceeding) day, the following taken. On Janu- actions 2007, 30, the clerk notified Watkins dissenting. ary Justice GRAY Chief opinion. in this plained and the later 1. The difference between this amount style ex- in the will be amount of the case filing that the fee in yet the amount of ruled on his $125.00 status and refer- past was due. The letter also noted that enced a “Motion to Dismiss District appellant “unless obtained status Appellant’s Clerk’s Motion to Contest Indi- purposes under Texas Rule of gence” filed with the district clerk on 20, Appellant Procedure 22, March 2007. The reporter’s record filing required.” fee is January This April received on 2007 and filed gave 30 letter days Watkins 10 from the day. date, the next April On that date of the letter to payment. make the we notified parties of the reporter’s now, record. This Court has
On 2007 the clerk filed promised, determined that the contest to Watkins’s affidavit of indigence in this *4 Watkins’s affidavit of indigence is to be Court. It appear does not thаt the affida- sustained, in essence that the Court will vit of was filed with the district deny indigency Tex.R.App. determination. It is clerk. P. But see 20.1(c)(1). requires determination that 20.1(d)(2). closer ex- 27, P. February On juncture. amination at this 2007, pursuant to Appellate Texas Rule of 20.1(d)(2), Procedure the clerk of this The Relevant Documents provided copy of the affidavit of
indigence to the district clerk and the offi- There are two critical documents in con- reporter. 27, cial court The nection with the determination that 2007 letter notеd that contest must be Court has made. The first document is days filed within 14 of the date of this the “Affidavit in Support of Motion to Pro- letter. ceed Forma Pauperis,” also referred to as Watkins’s affidavit of indigence. The
The notice Watkins and the district second document is the “District Clerk’s attorney, clerk, as well district also Motion to Appellant’s Contest Affidavit of notified parties the Court had Indigence.” Accordingly, I will set out determined that Appellate Texas Rule of each document verbatim below: 20.1(h) Procedure applied requested the submission of additional evidence no AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MO- days later than 21 after the date of the TION TO PROCEED IN FORMA thereafter, letter and that without conduct- PAUPERIS ing a hearing, the Court would decide the I, Don Michael Watkins BEING FIRST contest based on the additional evidence SWORN, DULY AND DEPOSE SAY appellant’s Citing affidavit. Tex. THAT I AM THE PETITIONER IN R.App. (h)(3). 20.1(g) On March CASE; THIS THAT IN SUPPORT OF 2007 the district clerk document MY MOTION TO PROCEED WITH- referred to as “District Clerk’s Motion to REQUIRED OUT BEING TO PRE- Appellant’s Contest Affidavit of Indi- FEES, COST, PAY OR GIVE SECU- gence.” THEREFOR, RITY THAT STATE POVERTY, BECAUSE OF MY I AM
Notwithstanding the affidavit of indi- UNABLE PAY THE TO COSTS OF gence and the impending determination of THIS CASE OR TO GIVE SECURITY Watkins, status of THEREFOR; AND THAT I BE- again wаs notified on March 2007 that LIEVE THAT I AM ENTITLED TO original filing fee of past $125.00 REDRESS. due. On April in re- sponse notice, point- our March I FURTHER SWEAR THAT THE ed out to the clerk that the Court had not RESPONSES I HAVE MADE WHICH YES, DE- IF IS A. THE ANSWER QUESTIONS IN- TO THE AND AND THE PROPERTY SCRIBE BELOW RELATING STRUCTIONS VALUE_ PAY STATE IT’S [sic] TO MY ABILITY TO THE COST IN OF PROCEEDINGS THIS COURT ANY CASH OR 4. DO YOU OWN ARE TRUE. OR SAV- CHECKING ACCOUNTS INGS EM- ACCOUNTS? 1. ARE YOU PRESENTLY YES_NO/ PLOYED? YES_NO/ ANS. YES,
A. IF THE ANSWER IS YES, IS A. IF THE ANSWER THE STATE AMOUNT OF SALA- VALUE OF STATE THE TOTAL _ PER RY WAGES MONTH OR THE ITEMS OWNED. GIVE THE NAME AND AND WHO ARE 5. LIST THE PERSONS YOUR EMPLOY- ADDRESS OF YOU UPON AND DEPENDANT ER. STATE RELATIONSHIP TO YOUR ANS_ THOSE PERSONS. N/A NO, B. IF THE ANSWER IS I DECLARE PENALTY OF UNDER DATE STATE THE OF YOUR THE PERJURY THAT FOREGOING *5 EMPLOYMENT AND THE LAST TRUE AND IS CORRECT. OF AMOUNT SALARY OR Michael D. Watkins PER MONTH WAGES WHICH BE- SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO YOU RECEIVED. 11 DAY OF FORE ME ON THIS Feb- $3000 7-1995 a
ANS. month ruary, 2007. 2. YOU RECEIVED ANY IN- HAVE Appeals # 10- Court of [Handwritten] THE COME WITHIN LAST 07-00001-CV BUSINESS, A MONTHS FROM PRO- # Trial Court 2002-390-5 [Handwritten] FESSION, OR OTHER FORM OF EMPLOYMENT, SELF OR IN THE MOTION DISTRICT CLERK’S PAYMENTS, FORM OF RENT IN- TO CONTEST DIVIDENDS, TEREST, OR OTHER AFFIDAVIT SOURCES? APPELLANT’S NO_ OF INDIGENCE YES / YES, A. IF THE IS DE- Judges ANSWER To the Tenth Honorable SCRIBE EACH SOURCE OF IN- Appeals: Court of AND THE COME STATE Matkin, Now Karen C. Dis- Comes AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM Clerk, County, trict McLennan Tex- THE EACH DURING PAST as, Movant and files this Motion Con- MONTHS. testing Indigence Affidavit of filed cause, Appellant Industries in this Mi- $250000 ANS. Unicor year $1,937.00, chael Don Watkins requests this Honorable Court as- 3. YOU ANY REAL ES- DO OWN to the District Clerk sess costs due BONDS, NOTES, TATE, STOCKS, County for the record of McLennan [sic], OTHER AUTOMBILES VALU- as follows: and would show Court (EXCLUD- ABLLE PROPERTY [sic] given Appeal was in the ING 1. Notice of ORDINARY HOUSEHOLD FUR- CLOTHING)? on December 2006. AND YES above matter NISHINGS February Appellant On _NO/ Appeals with the Tenth Matkin, Court of Karen C. District Clerk an requesting affidavit of PO Box 2451 given free record. Notice was Waco, Texas 76703-2451 District Clerk’s Office of an affidavit indigence by letter dated 254-757-5057 27, 2007. 2. The District Clerk estimates that Certificate of Service
the cost of the record is $50.00. certify that on March 2007 true requests 3. Movant the Court copy аnd correct the District Appellant’s disallow affidavit of indi- Appellant’s Clerk’s Motion to Contest gence following reasons: Indigence Affidavit of was served Appellant a. Pauper is not a certified mail to Michael Don Wat- qualify does not under Tx., Bastrop, kins PO Box 78602- 20.1. for a free record. are suf- There delivery 1010 and hand to John W. funds, ficient assets or income avail- Segrest, Street, Waco, Tx., 219 N. 6th Appellant able to the costs of suit. provisions b. Under Karen of Tex. C. Matkin 20.1.(c)(l) R.App. P. Appellant When I recеived the proposed order to required to file the affidavit indi- ie., sustain indigency, deny the contest to gence at or before the status, Watkins’s I asked the ba- notice of in the trial court. sis which the was making Appellant timely failed to file the affi- *6 determination, and asked pro- to see the davit and filed the affidavit in in- an posed again. order I my also noted reason appropriate location. questioning the recommendation as fol- 4. Movant asks the Court to assess lows: against Appellant costs the and set only The forth a time evidence on the issue is the which the same must paid appeal indigence be or affidavit of the appel- the will be dismissed lant. accept based on the Because we affi- record before it or in the must the alternative davit to set as evidence on the merits this matter for a because hearing. see party incarcerated, filing it is 20.1(g), TRAP I would overrule the con- Considered,
Wherefore Premises test and allow affiant proceed to withоut Karen C. Matkin asks the Court the advance deny payment of costs. TRAP the affidavit of based 20.1(h)(2). on the record before it or to set this hearing matter for and to assess costs In response, I following ques- received the against Appellant and set forth a [explanation you tion: “Is the below paid time which the same must be provided] you what want on the letter or the will be dismissed and for order?” question, responded: To this I such other and further relief to which my “What I want question. is answer may she be entitled under law. I why What wrоte below is I have the Respectfully submitted, question. I hoping you point am will out MCLENNAN COUNTY DIS- something join I have I overlooked so can TRICT CLERK your response recommendation.” In I re- Karen C. Matkin ceived following:
743 Nevertheless, is the basis if that Felipe nor coming. Neither That is not I note appeal, in this ruling votes to justify majority’s or our explain I have January Furthermore, see disparity I do not want to between you. there is a January in a concur- 30 any response might I make and the 29 letter Watkins You are as dissenting opiniоn. In ring or the clerk. both from letter to more) evaluating (maybe I capable days as letter, 21 had January 29 Watkins this motion. the merits of which to letter within the date of the after the clerk’s failure to respond my indepen- Accordingly, proceeded I with letter, January 30 But in the of the motion fee. analysis of the merits dent date of However, days from the pre- only after I given was set out below. analysis, to the late respond the “Order my independent the letter pared As was received. in before Indigency Cоntest” fee this Court on of the order, ex- partial from the to the Court presented can be seen matter would holding Thus, which for the order’s if the planation appeal. for dismissal status as only part Watkins’s denies is be- indigency contest sustaining of the independent provided. The was not time- indigent’s affidavit cause the perform analysis compelled I had been filed, disagree with that deter- I ly would issue; thus, I have already addressed well. mination as analysis it also my entire because provided filed on indigency The affidavit of intei'- potential other issues addresses 20, 2007, it was the date February est. Nevertheless, posting it bears a received. Possibly Late Thus, under date of January correspondence our why my attempt to determine days to re- given contest, which Watkins was one majority has sustained the timely filed. affidavit was spond, indi- that the affidavit of consideration was timely if the filing by mail ma- note that not considered because the gence was days after received within it filed late. document is jority determined that was are met. ruling if certain conditions possible could be a the deadline note that this 9.2(b)(1). appears It majority’s holding recent based See *7 Simental, were No. 10- of this rule requirements Brewer v. that Brewer. Further, 07-00094-CV, 1519632, 2007 Tex. I do not believe 2007 WL in this case. met 23, May access to the (Tex.App.-Waco deny 4144 App. LEXIS that we can Watkins’s order). the ma- affidavit proceeding, indigence In that his just 2007 courts because by the appellant’s that the deadline set jority determined received was not affidavit of indi- actually within which the received before deadline if it is clerk having avoid must be filed to it would not other- gence appeal is dismissed a for dismiss- 2007 matter referred Court Brewer Appellee. prejudice wise date by the nonpayment *1-2, LEX- Tex.App. al due at 2007 WL 1519632 As required action. C.J., which the clerk dissenting). (Gray, *1-2 IS at in that holding majority’s I understand by the
case, not received if the affidavit is of the Motion Merits from the clerk in the notice specified date of access right have a Indigent persons pay must appellant within which systеm. court See to utilize our fee, dismissed. can be Griffin Court Thirteenth v. Honorable (Gray, Indus. Id. holding, I dissented. To that (Tex.1996) 349, 353 Appeals, 934 S.W.2d C.J., dissenting). 744
(“Our
required
give
state Constitution and our rules of would be
notice
procedure recognize that our courts must
of the defect and allow “a reasonable time
open
legitimate disputes,
to all
not
with
irregu
to correct or amend the defects or
just
can
those who
afford to
the fees
899;
Higgins,
larities.”
at
S.W.3d
in.”).
get
person
If a
that
establishes
J.W.,
(Tex.
730,
re
52 S.W.3d
732-733
they
indigent,
extraordinary
are
аbsent
Tex.R.App.
2001.);
P. 44.3. We have not
being
circumstances such as
determined to
proce
notified Watkins of a defect in the
they
a
litigant,
may
be vexatious
establish
dure,
form,
any,
if
including the
of deter
their indigence
proceed
and can
without mining
indigence.
his
Tex.R.App.
the advance payment of costs.
Likewise,
indigency
if the
affidavit
is
20.1(a).
person
If it is clear that the
non-conforming
considered to be a
docu-
attempting
proceed
as an
on
comply
ment because it does not
with the
appeal,
pursu
that determination is made
specifications
regarding
of the rule
an indi-
Appellate
ant to Rule 20 of the Rules of
20.1(a)
affidavit,
gence
identify
“the court must
Specifically,
pro
Procedure.
Rule
procedure
establishing
vides the
indi
the error
be corrected and state
dead-
gence in civil
cases.
note that the affida
line
party
to resubmit
the docu-
indigence
vit of
filed Watkins was not
in a conforming
ment
format.”
20.1(c).
timely
according
9.4(i).
filed
to Rule
But P.
We have not notified Watkins
Supremе
the Texas
Court has reminded us
indigency
that his affidavit of
was a non-
deprive
litigant
we cannot
of review
Therefore,
conforming document.
we can-
just
non-jurisdictional
because the
affidavit
rely upon
not
the omissions from the affi-
timely
of indigence
Higgins
was not
filed.
indigency
davit of
to rule on the district
County
v. Randall
Office, 193 clerk’s contest
Sheriff’s
to Watkins’s assertion
(Tex.2006);
S.W.3d
899-900
see also
indigent.
he is
Stores,
Inc.,
Hood v. Wal-Mart
Further,
that the district clerk’s
note
(Tex.2007). Further,
S.W.3d 829
I note
indigence
contest of Watkins’s affidavit of
indigence
the affidavit of
filed Wat
does not constitute
evidence Wat
every
kins
does
contain
item of infor
is,
fact,
It
indigent.2
simply
kins
20.1(b).
required pursuant
mation
to Rule
pursuant
a contest of his
Generally,
required rig
has not
the rule.
Indus. v. Honorable
See Griffin
orous
requirements
exactness to the
Appeals,
Thirteenth Court
934 S.W.2d
regarding indigency
rules
determinations.
(Tex.1996) (“To
prima
overcome
Long,
In re
(Tex.App.
See
S.W.3d 481
showing,
opposing party
facie
must of
order);
Tay
Waco
dissent to
In re
fer evidence to rebut what has been estab
lor,
(Tex.App.-Waco
were Watkins one which to record, payment make the for the clerk’s anomaly briefly One that will mention determining would be adverse to he is the about this revealed indigent purposes paying for reporter’s reporter The did not record. the clerk’s fee. But more without informa- contest and filed status Watkins’s regarding money tion this when is re- reporter’s unpaid The fee for record. ceived, the in increments which it is re- reporter’s rec- record is The $52.00. ceived, and the encumbrances these forfeiture hearing ord indicates that proceeds, or other which expenses must be $1,937.00 by the is not as indicated received, paid from these when proceeds case, style of but instead is meager statement, and vague given $1,837.00. explained difference The other clear unequivocal statements being included one counterfeit bill $50.00 having affidavit no disposable currency in the that was forfeited assets, does not the determinatiоn support error in amendment to the forfeiture able to presently Watkins I note that this petition of $50.00 $50.00. expenses benefit, fees connection with this error to Watkins’s but may accrue appeal, including payment for the clerk’s present he does not have access to record. and, therefore, still unable would be $50.00 utilize it for advance Further, once has established costs. prima indigence, position facie case of his majority accepted as evidenced Majority’s The Reason3 *9 Court, of at this the waiver the fees due reason party majority gives absolutely the The no opposing the burden shifts to fact, how, In or their indigency why, to show when the or basis for determination. why independent prior I had to an 3. As the reader will understand from the recitation of do indicated, justice I a previously inquired by as would when reason be offended pro- their reasoning, given ruling about Justice Vance reasons having the for their the following response: vided in concurring dissenting included a or opiniоn being given unless the [explanation reason That of the basis for sus- taining coming. ruling the Nei- would indicate that the was based is not contest] Felipe explain ther nor I have or or upon improper to unlawful reasons. Furthermore, words, our justify you. votes to I if judge justice other the or can not want I any response might do to see result, provide proper a reason for the in concurring dissenting opin- make a or they by should not be offended its inclu- You I capable (maybe ion. are as in or dis- conсurring sion and discussion a more) of of evaluating the merits this hand, if senting On the other the opinion. motion. ruling by improper, result or is motivated reasons, irrational, judge or the unlawful Accordingly, I of way knowing, have no justice every or would have incentive to reader, the why majority nor does a of this not the reason. disclose has sustained the district clerk’s to Watkins’s that he is contest assertion fairly simple This should have been indigent. Nevertheless, this it was ruling by Court. hoped by obtaining expla- I had the passed and forth Justice baсk between we could on a together nation come reason ultimately Vance and me several times and to or But sustain overrule the contest. my having independently resulted in to the majority providing without reason everything in this evaluate connection with I ruling, for their am unable to determine If I provided determination. had been the I agree whether with it or not. conclusion, majority’s reason for the I thought one of reasons for primary the my could have focused research and re- appеllate having court deci- published Thus, sponse the not on stated reason. repeat, on to likely sions issues are reason, stating requiring the me to one, purpose express like this was for the my complete independent conduct own according litigants equal all treatment. the or guidance review of motion without Only knowing the for the deci- reason direction, justice another one has forced subsequent bring to litigant sion is able justice utilize an inordinate amount protections, himself within the or аvoid the to obtain a one ruling resources on this pitfalls, previous holdings regarding luxury issue. I do not have with this similarly situated There is no litigants. regard every my motion that crosses result of way compare cooperative spirit required A desk. with other proceedings justices result. disagree even if the on the we have individual to which allowed the justices one or more But to have proceed without the advance coming engage process refuse am, guess as I at costs. is left explaining the basis to a decision majority’s reasoning supporting should not be tolerated. their decision being determination of his status as anything However, powerless I am to do indigent. highlight so that problem other than bar, higher bench, the the parties, is not the first case in which Justice This courts, public large general- has a reason for at are provide Vance refused ly think of of the situation. Personally, apprised his decision. can no prepared. analysis, prepared order was this was before current form of the
Conclusion I have
Because been unable find to Watkins’s
basis to sustain the contest indigent, that he
assertion based only in the record re- evidence status, hold
garding would indi-
district clerk’s contest Watkins’s overruled,
gency is determine Wat- re- indigent,
kins is and therefore
quired costs Therefore, order the
advance. would provide clerk’s
district clerk record without advance this Court
of costs. CORDERO, Appellant
Lourdes
v. CORP.,
TENET HEALTHCARE al., Appellees.
et
No. 05-05-01329-CV. Texas, of Appeals
Dallas.
May