Ray Warmsley v. Mac A. Stringfellow

                                                             11th Court of Appeals

                                                                  Eastland, Texas

                                                                        Opinion

 

Ray Warmsley

Appellant

Vs.                   No. 11-02-00153-CV --  Appeal from Taylor County

Mac A. Stringfellow et al

Appellees

 

Ray Warmsley appeals from the trial court=s order dismissing his cause of action.   On January 17, 2002, appellant, an inmate in the French Robertson Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID), filed a class action suit against Mac A. Stringfellow, Chairman of the Texas Board of Criminal Justice; Janie Cockrell, Director of the TDCJ-ID; James Duke, Warden of the French Robertson Unit; and Captain J. Pechacel of the French Robertson Unit for allegedly violating his constitutional rights.  Appellant asserted that appellees had implemented AAntebellum Southern Plantation  rules and regulations@ in the Texas prison system.  Appellant essentially attacked the racial composition of the prison system=s administration.  Appellant contends that this Asystem@ has caused him and other offenders to suffer Aunconstitutional infliction of psychological pain@ from hollering, harassment, and intimidation. 

Appellant sought a declaratory judgment that appellees= acts and omissions violated the United States and Texas Constitutions.  He also sought permanent injunctions prohibiting appellees from violating his and other inmates= constitutional rights and prohibiting Duke from serving in his position as Warden of the French Robertson Unit.   Appellant also sought damages in the amount of $750,000.  On April 17, 2002, upon the appellees= motion, the trial court found the cause of action to be frivolous and dismissed the cause with prejudice.  We affirm.


Appellant brings 7 issues on appeal arguing that the trial court erred in dismissing his class action lawsuit.  Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code governs suits brought by an inmate who files an affidavit or unsworn declaration of inability to pay costs, except for suits brought under the Family Code.  TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. ' 14.002 (Vernon Supp. 2002).  The trial court has broad discretion to dismiss a lawsuit brought under Chapter 14 as frivolous or malicious.  TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. ' 14.003(a)(2) (Vernon Supp. 2002);   Jackson v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice‑‑Institutional Division, 28 S.W.3d 811, 813 (Tex.App. - Corpus Christi 2000, pet=n den=d); Lentworth v. Trahan, 981 S.W.2d 720, 722 (Tex.App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet=n).  In determining whether a claim is frivolous or malicious, the trial court may consider whether:

(1) the claim's realistic chance of ultimate success is slight; 

(2) the claim has no arguable basis in law or in fact; 

(3) it is clear that the party cannot prove facts in support of the claim; or

(4) the claim is substantially similar to a previous claim filed by the inmate because the claim arises from the same operative facts. 

 

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. ' 14.003(b) (Vernon Supp. 2002). When reviewing a dismissal under Chapter 14, the standard of review on appeal is for abuse of discretion.   Hickson v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397, 398 (Tex.App. - Waco 1996, no writ).  Abuse of discretion is determined by whether the trial court acted without reference to any guiding principles.  Hickson v. Moya, supra.            The trial court may, in its discretion, conduct a hearing to determine whether the inmate's suit is frivolous.  TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. ' 14.003(c) (Vernon Supp. 2002).  Appellant has not shown that he would have presented evidence had a hearing been held; therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing appellant=s cause of action without conducting a hearing.  Hall v. Treon, 39 S.W.3d 722 (Tex.App. - Beaumont 2001, no pet=n).  The trial court=s order states that the trial court considered all of the pleadings filed by the parties and determined that the cause was frivolous.  Appellant has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion.  We have considered all of appellant=s issues on appeal, and we overrule all of appellant=s arguments on appeal. 

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

 

PER CURIAM

October 31, 2002

Do not publish.  See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.3(b).

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., and McCall, J.