Carroll Lee Knight v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 368th District Court of Williamson County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 3rd District Court of Appeals » 1996 » Carroll Lee Knight v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 368th District Court of Williamson County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 03-95-00736-CR

Case Date: 12/12/1996

Plaintiff: Darryl Wayne Bell

Defendant: W. Lawrence, et al.--Appeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County

Preview:Darryl Wayne Bell v. W. Lawrence, et al.--Appeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County
Bell v. Lawrence /**/ IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-94-313-CV

DARRYL WAYNE BELL, Appellant v.

W. LAWRENCE, ET AL., Appellees

From the 52nd District Court Coryell County, Texas Trial Court # 28,918

OPINION

Darryl Wayne Bell, a prison inmate, filed a lawsuit in forma pauperis against W. Lawrence, a correctional officer with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145. The court dismissed the action, finding that the suit was frivolous and malicious because the claim stated had no arguable basis in law or in fact, Bell failed to state a cause of action, only minimal damages were possible, and Bell had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 13.001 (Vernon Supp. 1995). We will affirm the judgment. Bell's original petition alleges a section 1983 civil rights action. See 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 (West 1994). He alleges that on August 17, 1994, Lawrence "sever[e]ly damaged" his tennis shoes. Bell sought a declaratory judgment, an injunction, compensatory damages of $6,000, and punitive damages of $6,000. On appeal, Bell contends that his petition alleged "cruel and unusual punishment and violation of due process by

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/1492.html[8/20/2013 7:04:49 PM]

intentional deprivation of property." His brief states his points of error as "whether complainant stated a cause of action"; "whether only minimal damages possible"; and "whether appellant failed and required to exhaust administrative remedies." The combined argument under these points cites rules of civil procedure regarding the required content of original petitions. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 45, 47. Trial courts have great discretion in dismissing frivolous or malicious in forma pauperis claims. Johnson v. Lynaugh, 766 S.W.2d 393, 394, writ denied per curiam, 796 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. 1990). An abuse of discretion occurs when the court acts arbitrarily, capriciously, and without reference to any guiding principles. Smithson v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 665 S.W.2d 439, 443 (Tex. 1984). Bell couches his cause of action as a section 1983 civil rights violation for damage to his tennis shoes. "De minimus non curiat lex. The law cares not for small things." Smith v. Stevens, 822 S.W.2d 152, 152 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied). Any error in dismissing Bell's suit is harmless because the amount of actual damages is insignificant. See id. The court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Bell's in forma pauperis claim. See Johnson, 766 S.W.2d at 394. We affirm the judgment.

BILL VANCE Justice

Before Chief Justice Thomas, Justice Cummings, and Justice Vance Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed January 3, 1995 Do not publish

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/1492.html[8/20/2013 7:04:49 PM]

Download 1492.pdf