Ibn Khedru Anku a/k/a Frederick Louis Pugh v. TDCJID, et al.--Appeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 10th District Court of Appeals » 1999 » Ibn Khedru Anku a/k/a Frederick Louis Pugh v. TDCJID, et al.--Appeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 10-98-00301-CV

Case Date: 10/13/1999

Plaintiff: Ibn Khedru Anku a/k/a Frederick Louis Pugh

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

Preview:Ibn Khedru Anku a/k/a Frederick Louis Pugh v.
TDCJID, et al.--Appeal from 52nd District Court of
Coryell County
Ibn Khedru Anku a/k/a Frederick Louis Pugh v. TDCJID, et al. /**/
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-98-301-CV
IBN KHEDRU ANKH
A/K/A FREDERICK LOUIS PUGH,
Appellant
v.
TDCJID, ET AL.,
Appellees
From the 52nd District Court
Coryell County, Texas
Trial Court # 31,794
O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from the dismissal of an in forma pauperis prisoner s rights suit. The trial court dismissed the cause
as frivolous on grounds it has no arguable basis in law or fact and its realistic chance of success is slight. See Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 14.003-014 (Vernon Supp. 1999). We affirm.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Frederick Pugh, a prisoner in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, brought a civil rights suit against the
Department and eight of its employees. Pugh alleged the defendants unlawfully confiscated and destroyed his hardback
copy of the Holy Qu raan in violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Pugh also alleged the
defendants failed to conduct a meaningful investigation of his grievance claim and failed to treat the psychological
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/2847.html[8/20/2013 7:12:50 PM]

infirmities he suffered as a result of the loss of his property. He claims these actions violated his Fourteenth
Amendment right to Due Process and his Eighth Amendment right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment.
Before the defendants were served with process, the trial court dismissed the action as frivolous pursuant to Section
14.003 of the Civil Practices and Remedies Code. The court found that the claim asserted had no arguable basis in law
or fact, and that Pugh had failed to state a cause of action for which relief could be granted.
APPLICABLE LAW
Rule 145 of the Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party who is unable to afford costs to file an affidavit of poverty in
lieu of filing a security bond. Tex. R. Civ. P. 145. (Vernon Supp. 1999). However, a suit filed under Rule 145 is
subject to dismissal pursuant to Section 14.003 of the Civil Practices and Remedies Code if the court finds it frivolous
or malicious. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 14.003 (Vernon Supp. 1999). That section states:
(a) A court may dismiss a claim, either before or after service of process, if the court finds that:
(1) the allegation of poverty in the affidavit or unsworn declaration is false;
(2) the claim is frivolous or malicious; or
(3) the inmate filed an affidavit or unsworn declaration required by this chapter that the inmate knew was false.
(b) In determining whether a claim is frivolous or malicious, the court may consider whether:
(1) the claim s realistic chance of ultimate success is slight;
(2) the claim has no arguable basis in law or fact;
(3) it is clear that the party cannot prove facts in support of the claim; or
(4) the claim is substantially similar to a previous claim filed by the inmate because the claim arises from the same
operative facts.
Id.
Section 14.004 requires inmate petitions filed under Rule 145 to be accompanied by a separate affidavit describing the
nature and outcome of each previous suit initiated by the same plaintiff other than suits brought under the Family Code
or while the plaintiff was represented by an attorney. Id. 14.004(a). That section also requires that the inmate file a
certified copy of his trust account statement from the Department. See id. 14.004(c). Section 14.005 requires an inmate
who files a claim that is subject to the grievance system established under Section 501.008 of the Government Code to
file a separate affidavit noting the date the grievance was filed and including a copy of the grievance committee s
decision. Id. 14.005; Tex. Gov t Code Ann. 501.008 (Vernon 1998).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We have held the standard for review of dismissal under Chapter Fourteen is whether the trial court abused its
discretion. See Hickson v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397, 398 (Tex. App. Waco 1996, no writ). A trial court may be reversed
for abusing its discretion only when the court of appeals finds the court acted in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner.
See Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1159, 106 S.Ct. 2279,
90 L.Ed.2d 721 (1986). Stated differently, abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court acts "without reference to any
guiding rules and principles." Id. at 241-42. A corollary principle is that the court of appeals may not reverse for abuse
of discretion merely because it disagrees with a decision by the trial court, if that decision was within the trial court's
discretionary authority. See Beaumont Bank, N.A. v. Buller, 806 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex. 1991); Downer, 701 S.W.2d at
242. Because an appellate court might have decided a matter within the trial judge's discretion in a different manner
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/2847.html[8/20/2013 7:12:50 PM]

does not demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company v. Johnson, 389
S.W.2d 645, 648 (Tex. 1965); Jones v. Strayhorn, 159 Tex. 421, 321 S.W.2d 290, 295 (1959).
DEFICIENCIES IN PUGH S FILING
Pugh s petition was not accompanied by the affidavit or unsworn declaration required by Section 14.004. Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 14.004(a) (Vernon Supp. 1999). The petition did not include an affidavit or unsworn
declaration regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies, or a copy of the written decision by the grievance
system required by Section 14.005. Id. 14.005(a). The supplemental filing required by Chapter Fourteen is an essential
part of the process by which courts review the disposition of inmate litigation. See Hickson, 926 S.W.2d at 399. The
trial court could properly have dismissed the suit for failure to include the required affidavit or sworn declaration
relating to previous filings. See id. The trial court could also have dismissed the suit for failure to include an affidavit
or sworn declaration regarding the exhaustion of administrative remedies. See id. Thus, we hold the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in ordering the dismissal.
CONCLUSION
Because the trial court could properly have dismissed Pugh s suit under Section 14.004 or 14.005 of the Civil Practices
and Remedies Code, dismissal was not outside the scope of the court s discretion. Because of our decision, we do not
decide whether the claim was frivolous or malicious, or failed to state a cause of action. We affirm the order of
dismissal.
ROBERT M. CAMPBELL
Justice (Sitting by Assignment)
Before Chief Justice Davis
Justice Vance, and
Justice Campbell (Sitting by Assignment)
Opinion issued and filed October 13, 1999
Affirmed
Do not publish
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/2847.html[8/20/2013 7:12:50 PM]

Download 2847.pdf