William Vandergriff v. Jessica Taylor Kinsey ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                  In The
    Court of Appeals
    Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
    __________________
    NO. 09-20-00295-CV
    __________________
    WILLIAM VANDERGRIFF, Appellant
    V.
    JESSICA TAYLOR KINSEY, Appellee
    __________________________________________________________________
    On Appeal from the 457th District Court
    Montgomery County, Texas
    Trial Cause No. 20-01-01551-CV
    __________________________________________________________________
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    William Vandergriff, a pro se inmate, appeals an order dismissing
    his suit for want of prosecution. The trial court dismissed the case after
    Vandergriff failed to appear at a mandatory dismissal hearing. Before
    the hearing, however, Vandergriff moved for an order allowing him to
    appear by alternative means because he was in prison. The trial court
    ignored his motion and dismissed his case when he didn’t appear for the
    hearing. We hold the trial court violated Vandergriff’s due process rights
    1
    by ignoring his motion. The trial court’s order of dismissal is reversed
    and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
    Background
    Vandergriff is an indigent prison inmate who resides at the C.T.
    Terrell Unit in Rosharon, Texas. In January 2020, acting pro se, he sued
    Jessica Kinsey and alleged her tortious acts damaged him by causing him
    economic harm.
    In November, the trial court ordered all parties seeking affirmative
    relief in the case to appear on December 4th and “show cause why [the]
    case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.” In the order, the
    trial court stated failing “to appear and show good cause” would result in
    the case being dismissed and removed from the trial court’s docket. In
    response to the show cause order, Vandergriff asked the trial court to
    allow him to participate in the hearing by conference call because he was
    in prison. But even though Vandergriff filed the motion four days before
    the hearing, the trial court did not act on Vandergriff’s motion.
    On December 4th, the trial court called the for announcements on
    Vandergriff’s case, and Vandergriff—who was still in prison—failed to
    appear. The trial court ordered the case dismissed for want of
    2
    prosecution. After Vandergriff was notified the trial court dismissed his
    case, he moved to have it reinstated, alleging he failed to appear because
    he was in prison, not because he was consciously indifferent. Vandergriff
    blamed the dismissal on the trial court’s refusal to rule on the motion he
    filed asking for permission to appear at the hearing by conference call.
    But the trial court didn’t conduct a hearing on Vandergriff’s motion to
    reinstate, and it never ruled on that motion either. So, in the end,
    Vandergriff’s motion to reinstate was simply overruled by operation of
    law. 1
    Analysis
    In one issue, Vandergriff argues the trial court erred in dismissing
    his case and denying his motion to reinstate. Just like an order
    dismissing a case for want of prosecution, we review an order denying a
    motion to reinstate for abuse of discretion. 2 A trial court abuses its
    Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(3).
    1See
    2MacGregor v. Rich, 
    941 S.W.2d 74
    , 75 (Tex. 1997) (per curiam)
    (dismissal for want of prosecution); Smith v. Babcock & Wilcox Constr.
    Co., Inc., 
    913 S.W.2d 467
    , 467 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam) (denial of motion
    to reinstate).
    3
    discretion when it acts without reference to any guiding rules or
    principles or acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner. 3
    A trial court’s authority to dismiss for want of prosecution stems
    from two sources: (1) Rule 165a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure,
    and (2) the court’s inherent power. 4 Rule 165a allows a trial court to
    dismiss upon the “failure of any party seeking affirmative relief to appear
    for any hearing or trial of which the party had notice” or when a case is
    not disposed of within the appropriate time standards. 5
    In the present case, the trial court dismissed the case because “[n]o
    party seeking affirmative relief to said suit appeared” at the dismissal
    hearing. When a trial court uses its statutory power to dismiss a case for
    want of prosecution, and a party files a motion to reinstate, the trial court
    must reinstate the case if the movant shows his failure to appear was not
    intentional or the result of conscious indifference.6 And here, Vandergriff
    alleged he did not appear because he was incarcerated and because the
    3Iliff v. Iliff, 
    339 S.W.3d 74
    , 78 (Tex. 2011).
    4Villarreal    v. San Antonio Truck & Equip., 
    994 S.W.2d 628
    , 630
    (Tex. 1999).
    5Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(1)-(2).
    6Id. 165a(3).
    4
    trial court did not grant his motion for an order allowing him to appear
    via conference call.
    “It is well-established that litigants cannot be denied access to the
    courts simply because they are inmates.” 7 Inmates have no absolute right
    to appear in person in every court proceeding. 8 But it is fundamentally
    unfair to order an inmate to appear at a mandatory dismissal hearing,
    ignore his request to appear by an alternative method, and then dismiss
    the case because the inmate failed to appear. 9 When a trial court
    determines an inmate may not appear personally, the inmate should be
    allowed to proceed by alternative means, like by affidavit or telephone.10
    Here, the record demonstrates that before the trial court dismissed
    his case, Vandergriff asked the trial court to allow him to appear at the
    hearing by conference call because he was incarcerated. The trial court,
    however, failed to address that motion, proceeded to dismiss the case for
    7In   re Z.L.T., 
    124 S.W.3d 163
    , 165 (Tex. 2003).
    8Id.
    9See  Gamboa v. Alecio, 
    604 S.W.3d 513
    , 515 (Tex. App.—Houston
    [14th Dist.] 2020, no pet.).
    10In re Marriage of Bolton, 
    256 S.W.3d 832
    , 833 (Tex. App.—Dallas
    2008, no pet.).
    5
    Vandergriff’s failure to appear, and then failed to conduct a hearing on
    his timely-filed motion to reinstate.
    A trial court safeguards an inmate’s right to due process by providing
    an inmate with notice and an opportunity to be heard. 11 The trial court
    did not do that here. We conclude the trial court abused its discretion in
    dismissing Vandergriff’s suit without providing him the opportunity to
    appear and be heard.
    The trial court’s order is reversed. We remand the case to the trial
    court for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion.
    REVERSED AND REMANDED.
    _________________________
    HOLLIS HORTON
    Justice
    Submitted on June 27, 2022
    Opinion Delivered October 27, 2022
    Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
    11Univ.   of Tex. Med. Sch. at Hous. v. Than, 
    901 S.W.2d 926
    , 930
    (Tex. 1995).
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-20-00295-CV

Filed Date: 10/27/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/28/2022