Norman Crittenden v. Janice Hanson, Charlotte T. Mattox, Amanda Lewis, Nora B. Henderson, Bobby M. Vincent and Giriraj Ravichandran

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-13-00507-CV
____________________
NORMAN CRITTENDEN, Appellant
V.
JANICE HANSON, CHARLOTTE T. MATTOX, AMANDA LEWIS, NORA
B. HENDERSON, BOBBY M. VINCENT AND GIRIRAJ
RAVICHANDRAN, Appellees
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 88th District Court
Tyler County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 23045
________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Norman Crittenden, an inmate confined at a unit of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, appeals the trial court’s decision to dismiss his health care
liability claims because they are frivolous and because he failed to comply with
Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. In three issues,
Crittenden contends the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing his claims on
the basis that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies through the
1
Department’s grievance system. According to Crittenden, the Department has not
developed and maintained a grievance system to address the claims that he made
against the defendants in his suit. Crittenden argues that because his claims are not
subject to the Department’s grievance system, he was not required to use the
grievance procedures or to exhaust the administrative remedies in that system
before filing suit. We affirm the trial court’s order.
Background
Crittenden alleges in his suit that six employees of the University of Texas
Medical Branch were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs and had limited
his ability to obtain treatment by rescheduling or canceling his appointments.
Crittenden’s suit requests that the trial court issue a declaratory judgment and grant
his request for injunctive relief. Subsequently, the Attorney General filed a report
suggesting that Crittenden’s case should be dismissed because Crittenden had not
met the prerequisites required of inmates whose claims are subject to Chapter 14 of
the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
Ann. §§ 14.001-.014 (West 2002 & Supp. 2014) (establishing requirements that
apply to inmates who pursue actions in which the inmate has filed an affidavit or
unsworn declaration claiming an inability to pay costs). The trial court dismissed
Crittenden’s claims, finding that he had failed to comply with the requirements of
Chapter 14.
2
Standard of Review
We review a trial court’s dismissal of an inmate’s claims for failing to
comply with Chapter 14 under an abuse of discretion standard. Retzlaff v. Tex.
Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 94 S.W.3d 650, 654 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2002, pet. denied). A trial court has broad discretion to dismiss an inmate’s suit if
it finds that the claim the inmate asserts is frivolous or malicious. Tex. Civ. Prac. &
Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003(a)(2) (West 2002); Martinez v. Thaler, 931 S.W.2d 45,
46 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, writ denied). A trial court abuses its
broad discretion if it has acted arbitrarily or unreasonably, or if it decided the case
without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Brewer v. Simental, 268
S.W.3d 763, 767 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, no pet.). In determining whether a
claim is frivolous, the trial court may consider whether the claim has no arguable
basis in law or fact. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003(b)(2) (West
2002). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law if the inmate failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies before filing suit. Retzlaff, 94 S.W.3d at 653.
Applicable Law
Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code governs inmates
who file suits without paying costs. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§
14.001-.014. Chapter 14 requires an inmate to exhaust his administrative remedies
in the prison grievance system, a system the Legislature authorized the Department
3
to establish and maintain in section 501.008 of the Texas Government Code. See
id. § 14.005(a) (West 2002). The remedies provided by the Department through its
system are intended to be exclusive, as section 501.008 states: “A remedy provided
by the grievance system is the exclusive administrative remedy available to an
inmate for a claim for relief against the department that arises while the inmate is
housed in a facility operated by the department or under contract with the
department[.]” Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 501.008(a) (West 2012). Chapter 14
requires that trial courts ensure that inmates who have chosen to proceed in forma
pauperis have first used the Department’s grievance procedures, and that such
inmates have exhausted their administrative remedies before they are allowed to
proceed in state court. See Brewer, 268 S.W.3d at 769; Smith v. Tex. Dep’t of
Crim. Justice-Institutional Div., 33 S.W.3d 338, 341 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2000,
pet. denied).
Chapter 14 imposes several requirements that must be met before an inmate
can pursue a claim in a state court without paying a filing fee. See Tex. Civ. Prac.
& Rem. Code Ann. §§ 14.002(a), 14.004 (West Supp. 2014), § 14.005 (West
2002). For example, section 14.005(a) requires that the inmate file an affidavit or
unsworn declaration stating the date the inmate filed a grievance and the date he
received a written decision from the grievance system on his grievance. Id. §
14.005(a)(1). Section 14.005(a) also requires that the inmate file a copy of the
4
written decision through the grievance process with the court. Id. § 14.005(a)(2).
Where the inmate does not meet these requirements, the inmate has failed to
demonstrate that he exhausted his administrative remedies. See Garrett v.
Borden, 283 S.W.3d 852, 853 (Tex. 2009). If the inmate fails to comply with the
requirements of section 14.005(a), the trial court must dismiss the inmate’s suit.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.010 (West 2002); see Lilly v. Northrep,
100 S.W.3d 335, 336 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, pet. denied) (holding that
prison inmates who file suit in Texas state courts pro se and who seek to proceed
in forma pauperis must comply with the procedural requirements set forth in
Chapter 14 or have their suit dismissed).
Here, the record shows that Crittenden is an inmate housed in a facility
operated by the Department, and that he desired to proceed without paying costs,
as he filed an affidavit declaring he was unable to pay them. Crittenden’s claims,
which allege that various employees of the Department did not provide him with
proper medical treatment, are claims that fall within the scope of Chapter 14.
See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.002(a); Lilly, 100 S.W.3d at 335-36
(dismissing inmate’s malpractice claim as frivolous pursuant to Chapter 14). In his
original petition, Crittenden admits that he did not file a claim with the prison
grievance system. Because Crittenden failed, before filing suit, to exhaust his
administrative remedies, the trial court was required to dismiss his claims as
5
frivolous because they are without an arguable basis under the law. See Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003(b)(2); Retzlaff, 94 S.W.3d at 653.
We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing
Crittenden’s claims. We overrule all three of Crittenden’s issues, and we affirm the
trial court’s order.
AFFIRMED.
________________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on October 15, 2014
Opinion Delivered December 11, 2014
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
6