paul-james-koumjian-v-texas-department-of-criminal-justice-correctional ( 2009 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-08-00141-CV
PAUL JAMES KOUMJIAN,
Appellant
v.
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION DIVISION AND
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH,
CORRECTIONAL MANAGED CARE,
Appellees
From the 12th District Court
Walker County, Texas
Trial Court No. 24058
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Paul James Koumjian appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his proceeding finding
that it was frivolous because it did not comply with Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil
Practice and Remedies Code. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 14.001 et. seq.
(Vernon 2002). Koumjian complains that the trial court erred by sustaining special
exceptions at the same time as the suit was dismissed; that the motion to dismiss the
suit did not address Koumjian’s current live pleading; that the objections made by the
Attorney General regarding his failure to exhaust any administrative remedies and
because the statute of limitations barred certain of his claims were wrongfully
sustained; that the objection to his affidavit regarding previous litigation was
wrongfully sustained; that the special exceptions to his property deprivation and denial
of court access claims were improperly granted; and that the trial court erred in not
granting a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction based on his claims.
Because we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing this
proceeding for failure to comply with Section 14.004 of the Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Standard of Review
We review the trial court's dismissal of an in forma pauperis suit filed by an
inmate under an abuse of discretion standard. Hickson v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397, 398
(Tex. App.—Waco 1996, no writ). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily
and without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Downer v. Aquamarine
Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex. 1985). A dismissal for failure to file a proper
description of the inmate’s prior litigation is not an abuse of discretion. Bell v. Tex. Dep't
of Criminal Justice-Inst. Div., 962 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998,
pet. denied); Hickson, 926 S.W.2d at 398.
According to Koumjian, he had previously filed approximately 15-20 separate
suits. He does not deny that his affidavit was incomplete, but that he was unable to
properly prepare the affidavit due to lost records. The Office of the Attorney General
Koumjian v. TDCJ Page 2
filed a motion to dismiss Koumjian’s claims, in part due to his failure to fully comply
with the affidavit requirement in Section 14.004.
Koumjian did attach an affidavit concerning his previous filings with his
petition. However, the affidavit did not include a description of each suit previously
brought with details stating the operative facts for which relief was sought or the names
of the parties as required by Section 14.004. With respect to the affidavit, it has been
previously held that when 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. Melton v. Hendrix, No. 10-
07-00058-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 2578 at *7 (Tex. App.—Waco April 9, 2008, no pet.)
(citing Bell, 962 S.W.2d at 158; Hickson, 926 S.W.2d at 399) (trial court does not err when
dismissing a suit under Chapter 14 when the inmate has filed no affidavit, or a defective
one). Because Koumjian failed to describe his previous filings with sufficient detail, the
trial court could act within its discretion in dismissing Koumjian's suit. See TEX. CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 14.004; Bell, 962 S.W.2d at 158; Hickson, 926 S.W.2d at 398.
Conclusion
We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Koumjian’s
suit. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Koumjian v. TDCJ Page 3
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Reyna, and
Justice Davis
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed November 25, 2009
[CV06]
Koumjian v. TDCJ Page 4