Patrick Lee Mullins v. Hector Ortiz and Estelle High Security

 

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-06-00352-CV

 

Patrick Lee Mullins,

                                                                                    Appellant

 v.

 

Hector Ortiz and Estelle High Security,

                                                                                    Appellee

 

 


From the 278th District Court

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 23451

 

MEMORANDUM  Opinion


 

            The underlying suit in this appeal is the 14th civil suit filed by Patrick Mullins, an inmate in prison.  The trial court dismissed his suit with prejudice as frivolous and not in compliance with Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.  Mullins appealed the dismissal. 

            The standard for review of a Chapter 14 dismissal is whether the trial court abused its discretion.  Hickson v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397, 399 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996, no writ).  Abuse of discretion is determined by whether the trial court acted without reference to any guiding principles.  Mullins v. Estelle High Sec. Unit, 111 S.W.3d 268, 271 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, no pet.). 

            Mullins is no stranger to the requirements of Chapter 14.  But his petition still suffers from a deficiency under Chapter 14; that is, Mullins did not file the trust account statement required by Section 14.004(c).  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.004(c) (Vernon 2002).  The statute does not provide an inmate with the right to file a suit without the statement.  Therefore, the trial court could act within its discretion in dismissing the suit on that statutory requisite.  Hughes v. Massey, 65 S.W.3d 743, 746 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2001, no pet.).  However, such a dismissal is not a ruling on the merits of the claim.  Lentworth v. Trahan, 981 S.W.2d 720, 722-23 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.).  The proper remedy, then, is to modify the judgment by deleting the words 'with prejudice' and by substituting the words 'without prejudice.'  Hughes, 65 S.W.3d at 746.  Therefore, we reform the judgment to provide the claims made by Mullins are dismissed without prejudice.

            As reformed, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

 

                                                                                    TOM GRAY

                                                                                    Chief Justice

 

Before Chief Justice Gray,

            Justice Vance, and

            Justice Reyna

Affirmed as reformed

Opinion delivered and filed August 29, 2007

[CV06]