In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-06-013 CV
____________________
ARNOLD RAY LAMOTTE, JR., Appellant
V.
KEITH MCCLENDON, WARREN WORTHY, CHUCK BISCOE,
LINDA MARTIN, MELODYE NELSON, JAMES JONES, KEVIN COOK,
MARK W. COLE, NEEL G. BURNABY, JR., AND
JOHN MORIARTY, Appellees
Polk County, Texas
Trial Cause No. CIV 22,456
Arnold Ray Lamotte, Jr. is an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division ("Department"). He appeals the trial court's dismissal of a civil lawsuit he filed against Keith McClendon, allegedly a Department employee, and others. (1) In his petition, Lamotte made various claims against the defendants regarding alleged violations of the Department's grievance procedures. Without holding a hearing, the trial court dismissed all of Lamotte's claims as frivolous. We affirm.
Lamotte presents ten issues for our review. The issues are not "concisely" stated as required by the procedural rules. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(e). Instead, Lamotte's brief presents the issues in a repetitious and confusing manner. Also, his brief does not contain "clear and concise" supporting arguments as required by Rule 38.1(h) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Webb v. State, 533 S.W.2d 780, 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (noting that a pro se appellant is required to comply with all relevant rules of appellate procedure because "right of self-representation is not a license to capriciously upset the appellate timetable or to thwart the orderly and fair administration of justice").
However, in spite of the brief's deficiencies, Lamotte's stated issues present a recurring question, namely whether the trial court erred in dismissing his suit as "frivolous" without a hearing or trial. In the interest of justice, we will review this question. Lamotte's other issues are overruled.
Because Lamotte filed a declaration of his inability to pay the costs involved with his suit, the applicable statute is Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. That chapter is entitled "Inmate Litigation." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 14.001-.014 (Vernon 2002). Chapter 14 not only establishes various procedural requirements for inmate litigation but also empowers the trial court to dismiss the litigation in certain instances. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 14.003-.005 (Vernon 2002). The purpose of the chapter's procedural requirements is to deter "'constant, often duplicative, inmate litigation.'" Lilly v. Northrep, 100 S.W.3d 335, 337 (Tex. App.- San Antonio 2002, pet. denied) (quoting Obadele v. Johnson, 60 S.W.3d 345, 348 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.)). As a further deterrent, Chapter 14 also affords the trial court broad discretion to dismiss an inmate's claim if the court finds that the claim is frivolous or malicious. Moore v. Zeller, 153 S.W.3d 262, 263 (Tex. App.- Beaumont 2004, pet. denied); see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003(a)(2), (b) (Vernon 2002). (2) On appeal, we review a Chapter 14 dismissal under the abuse of discretion standard. Moore, 153 S.W.3d at 263.
Here, Lamotte complains that the trial court did not hold an evidentiary hearing or trial before dismissing his case as frivolous. However, the statute provides that the trial court "may hold a hearing" in determining whether to dismiss a claim but does not require the court to do so. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003(c) (Vernon 2002). In addition, Lamotte's brief contains no explanation of what evidence he would have offered to demonstrate the merits of his suit. Under these circumstances, we previously found that a trial court does not abuse its discretion by dismissing a frivolous case without a hearing when the inmate does not demonstrate that there is evidence he would have presented had a hearing been held. Hall v. Treon, 39 S.W.3d 722, 724 (Tex. App.- Beaumont 2001, no pet.); see Thomas v. Wichita Gen. Hosp., 952 S.W.2d 936, 939 (Tex. App.- Fort Worth 1997, pet. denied).
Lamotte presents no reason why we should abandon our holding in Hall. Thus, we find that the trial court here did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Lamotte's case as frivolous. We overrule all of Lamotte's issues and affirm the trial court's judgment.
AFFIRMED.
____________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on July 19, 2006
Opinion Delivered August 10, 2006
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
1. 2.