Reynaldo F. Morales, et al. v. Union Carbide Corporation, etal.--Appeal from 319th District Court of Nueces County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 13th District Court of Appeals » 2006 » Reynaldo F. Morales, et al. v. Union Carbide Corporation, etal.--Appeal from 319th District Court of Nueces County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 13-05-00573-CV

Case Date: 11/09/2006

Plaintiff: Reynaldo F. Morales, et al.

Defendant: Union Carbide Corporation, etal.--Appeal from 319th District Court of Nueces County

Preview:Tyrone Hall v. James Jones, James Ramsay, Margie
Smith and Martin Williams--Appeal from 258th District
Court of Polk County
No. 04-02-00286-CV
Tyrone HALL,
Appellant
v.
Eric JACKSON, et al.,
Appellees
From the 258th Judicial District Court, Polk County, Texas
Trial Court No. CIV17674
Honorable Elizabeth Coker, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Sitting: Catherine Stone, Justice
Paul W. Green, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 11, 2002
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED
Tyrone Hall, a prison inmate, appeals the trial court's order dismissing Hall's lawsuit as frivolous pursuant to Chapter
14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code ("Code"). In his brief, Hall appears to contend that the dismissal
was not proper because he was not given notice of the nature of the proceeding or of his right to file counter-affidavits.
We affirm the trial court's order.
Hall filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis in the underlying lawsuit. Several months later, the appellees moved
to dismiss the lawsuit, alleging that Hall had failed to comply with numerous provisions of chapter 14 of the Code,
including the failure to file the affidavit required by section 14.004 of the Code. The motion contained a certificate of
service, certifying that Hall was served with a copy of the motion. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed
Hall's lawsuit with prejudice.
We review a trial court's dismissal of an inmate's cause of action pursuant to chapter 14 of the Code under an abuse of
discretion standard. Hickman v. Adams, 35 S.W.3d 120, 123 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.); Clark v.
Unit, 23 S.W.3d 420, 421 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts
without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Hickman, 35 S.W.3d at 123; Clark, 23 S.W.3d at 421.
Because Hall filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis, he was required to file a separate affidavit identifying each
suit he previously filed pro se and describing those suits in the manner required by section 14.004 of the Code. Tex.
Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 14.004 (Vernon Supp. 2002). The affidavit enables the trial court to determine, based on
previous filings, if the lawsuit is frivolous because the inmate had already filed a similar claim. Clark, 23 S.W.3d at
422; Bell v. Texas Dep't of Criminal Justice - Inst. Div., 962 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1998,
pet denied). "[W]hen an inmate does not comply with the affidavit requirements of section 14.004, the trial court is
entitled to assume the suit is substantially similar to one previously filed by the inmate, and therefore, frivolous." Bell,
962 S.W.2d at 158. A trial court is not required to hold a hearing before dismissing a suit as frivolous under chapter
14. Spurlock v. Johnson, No. 04-02-00290-CV, 2002 WL 31174129, at *2 (Tex. App.--San Antonio Oct. 2, 2002, no
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/15645.html[8/20/2013 7:37:24 PM]

pet. h.).
The record demonstrates that Hall was served with a copy of the motion to dismiss; therefore, the record reflects that
Hall received proper notice. With regard to Hall's complaint that he was not informed that he could file counter-
affidavits, the trial court was not required to suggest or recommend that Hall amend his pleadings in order to comply
with chapter 14 before dismissing the lawsuit. Hickman, 35 S.W.3d at 124. Similarly, the trial court was not required to
inform Hall that he could file counter-affidavits. Because Hall failed to file the affidavit as required by section 14.004,
the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the underlying lawsuit.
A dismissal for failure to comply with the procedural requirements of chapter 14 is not, however, a ruling on the
merits; accordingly, the trial court errs in dismissing the suit with prejudice if the inmate was not first provided with an
opportunity to amend his pleadings. Hickman, 35 S.W.3d at 124-25. The proper remedy is to modify the judgment by
deleting the words "with prejudice" and by substituting the words "without prejudice." Id. Therefore, we modify the
trial court's order by deleting the words "with prejudice," and we affirm the trial court's order as modified.
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/15645.html[8/20/2013 7:37:24 PM]

Download 15645.pdf