In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-02-036 CV
____________________
TIMOTHY PAUL MARTIN, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. D-163,930
Timothy Paul Martin appeals the trial court's granting of the State of Texas's plea to the jurisdiction. The State was the only defendant in Martin's suit asserting claims of false imprisonment and negligence.
On appeal, Martin first contends the state is not entitled to immunity from his claims because immunity was waived under the Texas Tort Claims Act ("Act"). This is so, he says, because he was falsely imprisoned and transported to prison in a state vehicle while handcuffed; thus, he maintains his claims involve the use of tangible personal property, i.e., motor vehicles and handcuffs.
However, the Act does not waive sovereign immunity for claims of false imprisonment. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.057 (Vernon 1997). Further, Martin's claims of negligence are associated with his criminal sentencing in 1990, as well as his various subsequent appeals and applications for writs of habeas corpus and writs of mandamus. The limited waiver of sovereign immunity set forth in the Act does not apply to Martin's claims of negligence either. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 101.021 (Vernon 1997).
As Martin does not plead or otherwise establish legislative consent to bring his action, we overrule Martin's issue and find the trial court properly granted the State's plea to the jurisdiction. See Federal Sign v. Tex. S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 405 (Tex. 1997).
Martin also asserts that the trial judge should have recused himself. Attached to Martin's brief is an instrument dated October 30, 2001, and entitled "Plaintiff's Objection to [the presiding judge's] Hearing This Case." However, this document is not part of the appellate record, and nothing in the record shows Martin ever presented his objection to the trial court. Thus, Martin has preserved nothing for our review on his recusal issue, which is overruled. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a).
Martin also complains that the trial court did not act on his motion for appointment of counsel. While this motion is part of the appellate record, nothing in the record indicates the trial court heard the motion or that Martin sought a hearing on it. Again, Martin preserves nothing for our review on his appointment of counsel issue, which is overruled. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a).
Martin also alleges various acts of retaliation occurring subsequent to his filing of this suit. There is no appellate record regarding these matters. Nothing has been preserved for our review on the retaliation issue, which is overruled. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a).
We overrule all of Timothy Paul Martin's issues and affirm the trial court's dismissal of his claims.
AFFIRMED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on July 15, 2002
Opinion Delivered July 25, 2002
Do Not Publish
Before Walker, C.J., Burgess and Gaultney, JJ.