Document Info

DocketNumber: 03-18-00799-CV

Filed Date: 8/13/2019

Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/14/2019

  •        TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
    NO. 03-18-00799-CV
    Robert Lee Martin, Appellant
    v.
    Bob Perkins, Ronald Earle, Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza,
    Gary Cobb, Diana Medina, and Blake Williams, Appellees
    FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
    NO. D-1-GN-16-000901, THE HONORABLE J. DAVID PHILLIPS, JUDGE PRESIDING
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Robert Lee Martin, pro se, appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his “Ex Parte
    Petition for a Writ of Error Quo-Warranto.” The court dismissed Martin’s petition pursuant to
    chapter 14 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which governs claims by inmates. See Tex.
    Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 14.003(a)(2) (permitting courts to dismiss inmate claims that are
    frivolous); see also Hickson v. Moya, 
    926 S.W.2d 397
    , 399 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996, no writ)
    (stating that chapter 14 was designed to “control the flood of frivolous lawsuits being filed in the
    courts of this State by prison inmates, consuming valuable judicial resources with little offsetting
    benefit”). We affirm the trial court’s order.
    BACKGROUND AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
    Martin was convicted in 2001 of aggravated sexual assault, a felony, and is
    currently serving a life sentence for the offense. In 2016 he filed his petition quo warranto against
    several public officials connected to his conviction—the Honorable Bob Perkins, the judge who
    presided over his trial; former Travis County District Attorney Ronald Earle; former Travis
    County Assistant District Attorney Gary Cobb; Travis County Assistant District Attorney Diana
    Medina; former Travis County District Clerk Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza; and former Travis
    County District Clerk’s Office employee Blake Williams—alleging that they did not have their
    oaths of office on file and that his conviction is therefore “null and void ab initio.”
    Appellees Earle, Cobb, Medina, and Rodriguez-Mendoza1 filed a motion to
    dismiss under chapter 14 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
    Code § 14.003(a). The trial court granted the motion and sua sponte dismissed with prejudice
    Martin’s lawsuit against all of the appellees, determining that the suit (1) has no basis in law
    because the court lacked jurisdiction; (2) has no basis in fact; and (3) is presumed frivolous
    because Martin did not comply with chapter 14’s requirements. See 
    id. § 14.003(b)(2)
    (permitting
    court to consider whether claim “has no arguable basis in law or in fact” in determining
    whether inmate claim is frivolous); Bell v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice-Institutional Div.,
    
    962 S.W.2d 156
    , 158 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied) (stating that when
    inmate fails to comply with affidavit requirements of section 14.004, court is entitled to presume
    that suit is substantially similar to one previously filed by inmate and, therefore, frivolous); see
    generally Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 14.001–.014 (governing inmate claims).
    We review the trial court’s order dismissing Martin’s petition for an abuse of
    discretion. See Hamilton v. Pechacek, 
    319 S.W.3d 801
    , 809 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2010, no
    pet.). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner without
    1
    Martin failed to execute proper service on Perkins and Williams and, therefore, neither
    party answered the lawsuit or joined in the motion.
    2
    reference to any guiding rules and principles. Crawford v. XTO Energy, Inc., 
    509 S.W.3d 906
    ,
    911 (Tex. 2017).
    DISCUSSION
    Martin contends that the trial court erred in determining that it does not have
    jurisdiction over his petition and in dismissing all of the appellees rather than just those who filed
    the chapter 14 motion to dismiss. He also contends that his petition has a basis in fact, contrary
    to the court’s determination, and that dismissal was not a proper remedy for his failure to comply
    with chapter 14’s requirements.
    “An action in the nature of quo warranto is available if . . . [relevantly] a person
    usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or executes a franchise or an office, including an office
    in a corporation created by the authority of this state [or] a public officer does an act or allows
    an act that by law causes a forfeiture of his office.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 66.001(1).
    Appellees correctly contended in their motion to dismiss that Martin lacks standing to maintain a
    quo warranto action because the attorney general or county or district attorney must bring
    such action in the name of the State of Texas. See 
    id. § 66.002(a)
    (“If grounds for the remedy
    exist, the attorney general or the county or district attorney of the proper county may petition
    the district court of the proper county . . . for leave to file an information in the nature of quo
    warranto.”), (b) (“The petition must state that the information is sought in the name of the State
    of Texas.”); Gaines v. Jasso, No. 05-16-00578-CV, 
    2017 WL 1908632
    , at *1 (Tex. App.—
    Dallas May 10, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (affirming trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s petition
    for writ of quo warranto alleging that judge who presided over his suit should be removed
    because he had not signed oath of office because such action may only be brought by attorney
    3
    general or county or district attorney); Orix Capital Mkts., LLC v. American Realty Tr., Inc.,
    
    356 S.W.3d 748
    , 754 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, pet. denied) (holding that judgment debtor
    lacked standing to bring action in quo warranto to challenge qualifications of district court judge,
    as only State may pursue action); see also City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 
    246 S.W.3d 621
    , 627 n.8
    (Tex. 2008) (“Quo warranto proceedings are used by the State to protect itself and the good
    of the public through agents of the State who control the proceedings.”); Wilson v. State,
    
    977 S.W.2d 379
    , 380 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998) (holding that only attorney general or county or
    district attorney may bring quo warranto action). Because Martin does not have standing to
    maintain this action, the trial court properly dismissed his petition on the ground that it has no
    basis in law. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 14.003(b)(2). Furthermore, the trial court
    properly dismissed Martin’s claim against all appellees, as the court may dismiss an inmate
    claim that is frivolous even before service of process has been effectuated. See 
    id. § 14.003(a).
    Nonetheless, Martin contends that an unusual procedural occurrence in the trial
    court essentially transformed his quo warranto action into one brought by the State. The record
    shows that his petition was inadvertently dismissed for want of prosecution; in response, Martin
    filed a lawsuit against the Travis County District Clerk. To rectify this inadvertence, the district
    clerk filed an equitable bill of review seeking to reinstate Martin’s case, which the trial
    court granted. Because his case was reinstated—via an order signed by the trial court—Martin
    contends that this quo warranto action “was filed by order of a judge” and thus falls under the
    statutory requirement that it be brought by the State or on its behalf. However, there is no
    support for this proposition in the record or under any applicable law. Furthermore, the county
    attorney’s chapter 14 motion to dismiss belies Martin’s contention that the action was brought by
    4
    the State. We overrule Martin’s first issue, which is dispositive, and thus need not address his
    other arguments. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1, 47.4.
    CONCLUSION
    The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Martin’s petition for writ
    of error quo warranto. Accordingly, we affirm its dismissal order.
    __________________________________________
    Thomas J. Baker, Justice
    Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly
    Affirmed
    Filed: August 13, 2019
    5