Edward Cox v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice ( 2012 )

Opinion issued July 5, 2012.
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
NO. 01-12-00088-CV
____________
EDWARD COX, Appellant
V.
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, Appellee
On Appeal from the Administrative Review and Risk Management Division1
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Internal Grievance System Nos. 2012049352 & 20120468042
MEMORANDUM OPINION
1
This case was appealed to the Tenth Court of Appeals sitting in Waco, Texas and
was docketed under cause number 10-12-00001-CV. The case was transferred
pursuant to an order of the Texas Supreme Court dated January 10, 2012, in
miscellaneous docket number 12-9008.
2
Although there are two grievance numbers, they appear to involve the same facts
and allegations and were transferred to this Court under one cause number. We
will therefore treat the two grievance numbers as one appellate cause.
Appellant Edward Cox attempts to appeal from a decision of the
Administrative Review and Risk Management Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice. We dismiss the appeal.
Under Texas law, “there is no right to judicial review of an administrative
order unless a statute provides a right or unless the order adversely affects a vested
property right or otherwise violates a constitutional right.” Cont’l Cas. Ins. Co. v.
Functional Restoration Assocs., 19 S.W.3d 393, 397 (Tex. 2000); see Harrison v.
Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, Inst’l Div., 164 S.W.3d 871, 876 (Tex. App.—
Corpus Christi 2005, no pet.). Texas Government Code section 501.008 requires
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to “develop and maintain a system for the
resolution of grievances by inmates housed in facilities operated by the
department.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 501.008(a) (West 2004). The department’s
grievance system provides the exclusive administrative remedy to an inmate for a
claim against the department that arises while the inmate is housed in a facility
operated by the department. Id. Only after an inmate pursues relief through the
grievance system may the inmate file a claim in state court, and even then he may
only file a claim if authorized by statute. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 501.008(d);
Cont’l Cas. Ins. Co., 19 S.W.3d at 397.
2
Pursuant to section 2001.171 of the Administrative Procedure Act, a “person
who has exhausted all administrative remedies available within a state agency and
who is aggrieved by a final decision in a contested case is entitled to judicial review
under this chapter.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 2001.002, 2001.171 (West 2008).
Section 2001.226, however, exempts “a rule or internal procedure of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice . . . that applies to an inmate or any other person
under the custody or control of the department or to an action taken under that rule
or procedure” from the Administrative Procedure Act. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN.
§ 2001.226 (West 2008). Therefore, an inmate has no right to judicial review of a
decision made pursuant to the department’s grievance system. See Cont’l Cas. Ins.
Co., 19 S.W.3d at 397; Foster v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 344 S.W.3d 543,
547–49 (Tex. App.—Austin 2011, pet. denied) (holding that section 2001.226
barred judicial review of execution procedure because it was internal procedure of
Texas Department of Criminal Justice); Harrison v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice,
Inst’l Div., 164 S.W.3d at 876 (holding that section 2001.226 barred judicial review
of administrative decision of Texas Department of Criminal Justice); Kelley v.
State, No. 14-03-00480-CV, 2004 WL 1171770, *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] May 27, 2004, no pet.) (holding that inmate could not seek judicial review of
3
department’s determination pursuant to inmate grievance system that his grievance
was not timely).
In this case, appellant attempts to directly appeal from a decision made by the
Administrative Review and Risk Management Division of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice. The decision, which found that appellant’s grievance was not
timely, is the result of a grievance appellant filed with the department’s grievance
system against the department. We have no jurisdiction over such an appeal.3 See
TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §§ 501.008(d) (stating that inmate may file claim, after
exhausting grievance procedure, in state court); 2001.226 (excepting department’s
rules and procedures from Administrative Procedure Act); see also Foster, 344
S.W.3d at 547–49 (holding that section 2001.226 barred judicial review of
execution procedure because it was internal procedure of Texas Department of
Criminal Justice); Harrison, 164 S.W.3d at 876 (holding that section 2001.226
barred judicial review of administrative decision of Texas Department of Criminal
Justice); Kelley, 2004 WL 1171770, at *1 (holding that inmate could not seek
3
Appellant’s grievance involves a claim for $21.00. In civil cases, we “have
jurisdiction when the amount in controversy or the judgment rendered exceeds
$250.” TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.220 (West Supp. 2011); see TEX. CIV. PRAC.
& REM. CODE ANN. § 51.012 (West Supp. 2011); Tune v. Tex. Dep’t of Pub. Safety,
23 S.W.3d 358, 361–62 (Tex. 2000). Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction over
this appeal. Nonetheless, because we have not provided appellant with the
mandatory notice of intent to dismiss on this basis, we do not base our dismissal on
this ground. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3.
4
judicial review of department’s determination pursuant to inmate grievance system
that his grievance was not timely).
On January 6, 2012, the Clerk of the Tenth Court of Appeals notified
appellant that his appeal was subject to dismissal for want of jurisdiction unless he
filed a response showing that a court of appeals has jurisdiction over this case.
Appellant did not adequately respond.
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP.
P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We dismiss any other pending motions as moot.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Brown.
5