Carl Mott v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division ( 1997 )

Carl Mott v. TDCJ-ID et al

  IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-97-257-CV

     CARL MOTT,

                                                                              Appellant

     v.

     TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL

     JUSTICE INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

     ET AL.,

                                                                              Appellees

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court # 31,007

O P I N I O N

      Appellant Mott, an inmate, appeals from an order of the trial court dismissing his pro se in forma pauperis lawsuit.

      Appellant filed a suit pro se in forma pauperis on August 18, 1997, against Appellees, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division, Dr. James T. Robison, Assistant Warden Charles C. Bell, and Rochelle McKinney, Regional Director, seeking a mandamus to require Appellees to give appropriate health care and, specifically, to prescribe for him more than 20 Dimetapp pills for 30 days. Appellant had previously sought relief through the Inmate Grievance System to no avail. The trial court on August 26, 1997, dismissed Appellant's action as frivolous pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code.

      Appellant filed a pauper's affidavit pursuant to Rule 145, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Chapter 14, § 14.003, Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, applies to suits brought by an inmate who has filed an affidavit of inability to pay costs. Section 14.003(a) allows a court to dismiss a suit before or after process is served if the court finds (1) the allegation of poverty is false; (2) the claim is frivolous or malicious; or (3) the inmate filed an affidavit or unsworn declaration required by Chapter 14 that the inmate knew was false. In determining whether a claim is frivolous or malicious, the court may consider whether (1) the claim's realistic chance of success is slight; (2) the claim has no arguable basis in law or fact; (3) it is clear 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.

      Section 14.004 requires the inmate to file a separate affidavit or declaration identifying each prior suit brought by the inmate, specifying the operative facts, the case name, the case number, the court in which it was brought, the names of the parties, and the result of the suit. Id. § 14.004(c).

      Our review of a dismissal under Chapter 14 is controlled by the abuse of discretion standard. Abuse of discretion is determined by whether the court acted without reference to any guiding principles. Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, 133 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. 1939).

      Appellant's petition was not accompanied by the affidavit or unsworn declaration required by § 14.002 or by the certified copy of the inmate's trust account statement as required in Chapter 14.

      Chapter 14 was designed to control the flood of frivolous lawsuits being filed by prison inmates, consuming valuable judicial resources with little offsetting benefit. Hickson v. Moya, et al., 926 S.W.2d 379 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996, no writ).

      The supplemental filing required by § 14.004 is designed to assist the court in making determinations the Legislature called upon it to make; thus it is an essential part of the process by which the court reviews inmate cases.

      Because the court can dismiss where an inmate files a false affidavit or declaration, that same policy allows the court to dismiss a suit filed without the affidavit or declaration. Hickson, supra. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Appellant's suit.

      Appellant contends by way of an “interlocutory” brief that Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code is “unconstitutional,” is “civil white wash,” and “designed to further delay [inmate] litigants their day in court.” We overrule Appellant’s contention.

      The order of the trial court is affirmed.

                                                                               FRANK G. McDONALD

                                                                               Chief Justice (Retired)

Before Chief Justice Davis,

      Justice Vance and

      Chief Justice McDonald (Retired)

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed November 19, 1997

Do not publish