Case Information

December 20, 2015

DEC 292015

TO: Vivian Lons. Clerk PO Box 9540 Amarillo TX 79105-4540

Re: JARIDIE JAMES JACKSON v. OLIVEZ SELL. et al. Areal No 67-13-60444-CV T'rielnO. 101647-E

Dear Clerk, Please find enclosed Appellants Motion for Reticorins. Please file and brins to the attention of Carf.

*2 IN THE COURT OF APPERL'S

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-13-00444-CV

REIDIE SAMES SACKSON, APPELLANT

OLIVER BELL, ET AL., APPELLES

On Appeal from the 108th District Court Potter County, Texas

Trial Court No. 101847-E, Honorable Douglas Woodburn, Residing

Plaintiff's Motion For Rehearing

Pisidie James Jackson, prose £1164177 Clements Unit 4601 Sour 591 Amarillo, TX, 79107-9606

*3 IN THE COURT OF APPERL'S SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS ANNARILLS

No. 07-13-00444-CV

REIDNE JAMES JACKSON, APPELLANT. V.

OLIVER BELL, ETAL., APPRELLES.

On APEeal from the 108th District Court Poster County, Texas Trial Court No. 101647-E, Honorable Dauslas Wadburn

APPEELLANTS MOTION FOR REHEARING

TO THE HONDRAFLE JUSTICES OF THE COURT OF APPERL'S:

APPELLANt Reidie James Jackson WYWASHt this 42 U.SC 88 985, 1985 (3), and 1986, appearing pro se and in forma raueris, against Oliver Bell, as chairman of Texas Board of Criminal Justice, and Rick Thaler as the director of Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Divisions (the Division). The trial court found APEeillant to be a vexatious litiéant under Charter II Texas Civ. Prac 6 Rem Code 88 II.001-C04 and dismissed his lawsuit under Charter 14 of the Texas Civil Prec 6 Rem Code 88 14.001-014. Court of APEeals, Seventh District, affirmed both findinés. APEeillant now moves for rehearings.

BACKGROUND

Aprellant filed his suit in Travis County on March 14, 2013. He sought declaratory and insurative relief, and requested certification of all inmates in the Division's custody.

Aprellant's Orisinal and Amended Retitions made multiple allestions against Appellees, but the crux retitions were that Aprellant had rishts and protections which directly involved Texas Penal Code 1.08, but were subsecuerity violated by Aprelless. Section 1.08 states: "No govemmental subdivision or agency may enact or enforce a law that makes any conduct covered by this code an offense subject to a criminal penalty. This section shall apply only as long as the law sovieming the conduct prescribed by this code is lesellf enforceable."

A concise rendition of Aprellants Orisinal and Amended Retitions would be : violation of due process because the draciflinary procedure violates state constitution renderins it void; separation of powers becuse created powers alteady preempted ; violation of exual protection becalue every agency in Texas is controlled by TPC. 108 and receive its protection; creatin a statewide culture of excessive force violatins 8th Amendment.

Aprellant was not permitted discovery and no hearins was held. Aprellant on page 2 of his Amended Comfaint stented a c: "The Defendants and both of them, did deprive the Plaintiff of his liberties and lawful properties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and Articles 881117 $ 19 ." At (D) "The intentional acts or omissions of Defendants caused the Plaintiff to be restrained in a manner which imposed an "atroical and significant hardship in relation to ordinary incidents of prison life." "The Defendants convened an administrative or policy makinn hearing

*5 or meeting on or about April 2010 or an undisclosed date which which was held to enact or enforce laws that subject each and every affender in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) to criminal penalty for performance of conduct covered by the Texas Penal Code."

On page 3 of Appellants Amended Complaint "Defendants acted with unlawful manner for unlawful purpose or acted / failed to act to accomplish a lawful purpose by unlawful means . . . and result of ...creative statewide culture of excessive force and retaliation. . see (ExH1811 A in support hereof.)

At page 4 of Appellants Amended Complaint H(H) : "This U.O.F.P. is intimately linked to the disciplinary hearirg procedure. The Defendants have instructed that their subordinates write disciplinary cases against Plaintiff class and utilize U.O.F.P. to physically harm Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allased that Defendants have, through the abuse of state-created procedure U.O.F.P. enacted and enforced a culture of sadistic and malicious violence."

At page 4 of (E) Appellant states: "The Plaintiffs have rishits secured under the Separation of Powers doctrine. This doctrine forbids T.D.C.J. officials from actions in a judicial capacity, such as the one the Defendants unconstitutionally promulgated when the Defendants directed TDCJ officials to enforce laws and procedure which subjected Plaintiffs to criminal penalty. See Jones, 58 Sw3d 148: "Agency rules which violate state law are void."

PRO SE

Aprellant is a pro se litigator. At the time and Filing of his Drisinal Petition and Amended Petition, even more so the novice. Aprellant retuests liberal construing of his poorly drawn pleadines; this Court even stated "Jackson's petition is difficult to fallow." Pase 3 etio. see Amin v. Universal Life Ins.Co. 700 F26588 (640 a.1 (SNC/1983)

JURISDICTION

Aprellant files his Motion FOR REHERING avowant Rule 49.1 of Texas Rules of Aprellate Procedure.

POINT FOR REHEERING

1.) The Court of Apreals (C.O.A.) reviewed this suit de novo. The liberal construing anew, of the petition show that Aprellant pleat that he was subjected to criminal penalties such as taffing of money, properties, and community service. 2.) Aprellant alleced that in April of 2010, or at an undisclosed date, a hearing or meeting was held by Defendants wherein a separation of powers was caused by Defendants enacting and enforcing of laws for TD.C.T. that violated Texas Penal Code 81.08 , thereby violating Aprellants erual protection of Texas Penal Code (T.P.C.) 1.08. This was part of the Aprellant's Complaint, but not discussed in C.O.A. Orinion.

3.) The CGA. supported its findings that Aegellant was not subjected to "criminal penalties" by the "many cases addressing the question whether double jeopardy bars a criminal prosecution for conduct addressed through a prison inmate disciplinary system." Aegellants complaint is not one of double jeopardy's rather, Aegellants position has to do with jurisdiction, so his attack is not on the consequenbe of the decision, but that the hearinc that created the policy had no authority to create a policy which allows disciplinary hearing officers to "subject" anybody to criminal penalties based on conduct outlined in the T.P.C.

STRIMMENT OF FACIS

POINT # 1

4.) Aegellant filed an Original Petition and an Amended Petition which incorporated by reference one into the other. With these petitions were, in relevant parts affidavit from Adrian T. Wilson 1207116 , Motion for Reinstatement ; Memorandum and Brief in Ressase to Defendants Motion to Dismiss and Declare Plaintiff Vexations Litisant. 5.) Adrian T. Wilson's (Wilson) affidavit states he is extremely familiar with disciplinary policy and has been subjected to it continuously without cause. He describes being subjected to "criminal penalties" and goes on to describe the availability of the deforming information online to the public "ie." criminal history". His statements made under penalty of penalty. 6.) Aegellants Motion for Reinstatement / Reconsideration of Suit. was filed and states in relevant part of (6) page 2 : "... Plaintiff has been convicted multiple times wrongfully; this is the crux of the claim about TDCT holding the meanineless hearing and administering criminal penalties such.

*8 as monetary fines property restriction or loss work duty or any other penalties which a judge may administer to a criminal."

Furthermore on page 1 at (I. NO DISCOVERY) Appellant declares there has been no discovery and that it has severely prejudiced the prosecution of his suit's discovery would allow material evidence to be produced. 4.) Appellants 'Memorandum and Brief in Represe to Defendants Motion to Dismiss and Declare Plaintiff Versitious Lifisant At page 2 (D) : "disciplinary cases sent in as exhibits are only a few of the continuing violations .." " Upon further discovery Plaintiff can show ..." 5.) The American Century Dictionary defines "subdect" as being put under the power or jurisdiction of . 6.) Said dictionary defines punish as: "inflict retribution on (an offender) or for (an offense). 7.) Texas Penal Code 1.08 (TRE.) states "No governmental subdivision or agency may enact or enforce a law that makes any conduct covered by this code subject to a criminal penalty." 8.) Appellant has included in this Motion for Re Heavings a true and correct copy of a disciplinary report which is in form only similar to the previous exhibits a $# 8$ . At the category near the bottom, entitled "BHNISHMENT" are the punishments Appellant is subject to at a disciplinary hearing. The punishments he is subject to are, in relevant part: "DAMAGES/ FOREETT#' which if hearing officer chooses can take money EXTRA DUTY HOURS sentencing to extra community service; and Property (days) also subjecting restraint/loss of personal property.

AREAUMENT

PART 1

9.) Plaintiff has not complained of the punishments he received, but rather the act of being subjected to punishments. (See Court's Opinion at page 3 "... and property interest, and to be subjected to punishments without due process..." and "... there are many cases in which [he] was accused of conduct outlined in Texas Penal Code and subjected to criminal penalties."

Thoush the Court states what punishment APPELLant received, it never states what APPEllant was subjected to, vis à vis, what could the hearings officer have done. The category "PUNISHMENTS" near the bottom of the disciplinary form lists multiple punishments that APPEllant was subject to as a result of being an unwilling participant of the hearings policy and procedure. 10.) At the hearings demonstrated in the EXHIĖITS examined by this Court in its de novo review the 'PUNISHMENT' category is identical to the EXHIĖIT herets attached. It, shows (3) separate slots of interest: DAMAGES/FOREFEIT $ EXTRA DUTY(HAURS); PROPERTY (DANS). A taking of money, community service, and taking of property, respectively. These are punishments a audee mates out following a lawful court proceedings for conduct outlined in T.P.C. 11.) Every agency in Texas is protected from an agency conducting a hearings on conduct outlined in T.P.C. and being subject to any criminal penalty. The argument here is not if inmates should

*10

or could be disciplined ; an independent agency must do the job to prevent the outcome of the prejudice that perncentes the present system. One officer will not make a fair hearing for an inmate against another officer. What occurs now is a proliferation of confusion and hatred as those inmates whom eventually 90 home, having endured the current enormously prejudiced system: will have less and less faith in the system; eventual desgradation until chaos prevails. 12.) Appellant, and Appellant Class ; have a right to be protected from the desradation described above. The 14th Amendment states that those "similarly situated" should receive equal treatment and protection of the law: Similarly situated in the present context means being a Texan who wants to be protected from an agency enacting or enforcing a law which makes conduct covered by Penal Code subject to criminal penalty. 13.) Conclusively, Appellant would contend that, a thowesh poorly written and "difficult to follow", with the clarity displayed as to the subiection and actual punishment ; a rehearing would serve the legislative intent; not to have a bias adjudicator making judicial decisions and making out criminal penalties.

STAIRMENT OF FACES

1.) On page 7 of Appellants Amended Complaint at (5) Appellant described a hearing that Defendants held which violated separation

*11

of powers doctrine by creating a policy and procedure, namely disiplinary procedure, that contravened T.P.C. i. violated Affellants riehts underdue course of law and due process and equal protection clauses as Affellant stated: "At said date, or undisclosed date. . . Defendants abused their authority by implementing a state agency procedure to cause Plaintiff deprivation of liberty interest, and property interest, and to be subjected to punishments without due process..." "Plaintiff has enclosed (2) exhibits which are disciplinary cases which have been unlawfully forced upon Plaintiff... Each have a brief statement on the exhibit case." 2.) On EXHIBITE the cover-case states: "This is a TOCI disciplinary case"2012 D151413 which is an assault on officer case as outlined in the Penal Code 22.01. This is one of many cases in which Plaintiff was accused of conduct outlined in Texas Penal Code and subjected to criminal penalties. The penalties of being confined to the cell for determined amount of time i. having montes restrained i. having an increased permanent criminal record." 3.) C.D.A. did not address the above-mentioned issues.

ARGUMENT

4.) "The guarantees found in the Bill of Rishts are excepted from the general powers of government ; the State has no power to commit acts contrarybithedustrantees found in the Bill of Rishts." Tex. Constit Art I. 329: Any provision of the Bill of Rishts is self-executing to the extent that anything done in vidiation of it is void." Hemphill v. Watson, 60 Tex 674, (81 (1884).

*12

5.) Appellant attacked the disciplinary policy in two areas, at its inception in April 2010 hearing or undisclosed date and $∵$ at its execution, namely disciplinary hearing ultra viresly authori zene agency to subject inmates to criminal penalties on the basis of criminal conduct. 6.) C.D.A. did not address accusations at April 2010 hearing or undisclosed date at which Appellant alloses a violation of his state and Federal constitution rishts were violated. If this C.D. A acerts the exdaination about Appellant being subjected to punishment being different that would show Defendants violated his rishts under Texas Constitution. If the above holds, then any subsequent action done beneath the authority of disciplinary policy procedure is void. 7.) Appellant would respectfully move this Court to Re Hearing based on the Facts and issues in POINT 2.

STANENENT OF FACTS

POINT 2

1.) Court supported its findings that apellant was not 'subiected' to criminal penalties with the reasoning of the many cases addressing the question whether double jeopardy bars a criminal prosecution for conduct addressed through a prison disciplinary system. 2.) Appellant has not acquiesced any authority to any director, chairman, or administrator to violate my rishts as to the protections of the Penal Code I.DB. 3.) Appellants complaint does not address the results after the hearing of the agency officer, but, rather the hearing at which

*13

the Defendants convened a hearins, and, thereby enacting and enforcing the discipinary procedure that illegally permits the discipinary hearing officer to enforce a law , namely Tex Gov't Code Ann. 8444.002 (a) (westion) which empowers the TDCJ Discipinary Procedure to create the heariag, that makes conduct covered by Penal Code an offense subjeed to criminal penalty.

ARGUMENT
PAINT 3

4.) By C.O.A. supporting its finding through the double ieopardy cases and theory, it separates important facts. First, in order for someone to complain of having had their life or liberty placed in ieopardy twice for an offense, the individual concedes both tribunals have jurisdiction to hear the subject matter, make decisions fairly, and mate out punishments.

Appellants has been in a different gesture, other than double ieopardy. Appellant has attacked the Defendants at the start of any authorization that they portend to delegate to a discipinary hearing officer allowing an ultra vires override of the protections discussed above in T.P.C. 108. 5.) Appellant asserts the Defendants had not the legislative power to create policy contravening T.P.C. 1.08, and, by doing so caused a separation of powers, all subsequent policies flowing therefrom areoid. Hemphill v. Watson (6) Tex674,681 (1884). 6.) Appellant received not notice, proposal, or rieht of convened hearing which made the ultra vires decision, and, he would have arsued asainst it vehemently and appealed any adverse decision.

*14 CONCLUSION &; PRAYER

Aprellant has attempted to, in his first point, clarify those issues which were hard to follow in his pleadings in the trial stage: subject to punishment, and punishment in fact. The former being the hot toxic for the Aprellant.

Aprellant allowed hearing held in April 2010 by Defendants violated his constitutional rights and is void. Aprellant contends subsequent subordinate authorities are void, too.

The conclusive opinion of the C.D.A. supported by double seepardy cases is not applicable to the present case as Plaintiff assures the jurisdiction to convery authority to the hearing officer and the subsequent authorization of a TDCJ event to mete out criminal penalties based on conduct outlined in Penal Code, contraverting the 108 preemption.

WHEREFORE, Premises Considered, Aprellant asks this Court rehear this appeal and reverse and remand case.

Respectfully Submitted, 12-20-15

Mestidened to Ian Reible, James Tickson, 180127-254129-4001 Spurs 641-444418, Tis 78102-968

*15 EXHIBIT - A

*16

*17