11th Court of Appeals
Eastland, Texas
Memorandum Opinion
Garry Peoples
Appellant
Vs. No. 11-03-00335-CV – Appeal from Walker County
Cynthia Woods et al
Appellees
Appellant Gary Peoples is an inmate at the Ellis Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice – Institutional Division. Appellant, pro se, argues that the district court erred when it dismissed his tort claim and refused to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. We affirm.
Appellant alleged in his lawsuit that officers of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice confiscated his personal property consisting of denatured alcohol, lacquer thinner, leather dye, and adhesive cement after the craft shop was closed. Appellant claimed that Property Officers Woods and Matthew lost his items before he could have the items picked up. In his brief, appellant states that he first sought compensation for the items through the two-step process of the penal grievance system. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 501.008(d) (Vernon 1998). Step one of that process involves submitting a grievance form to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice at the institutional level and receiving its written decision; and step two involves submitting an appeal to the divisional level and receiving its written decision. Crain v. Prasifka, 97 S.W.3d 867, 870 (Tex.App. - Corpus Christi 2003, pet’n den’d). Appellant’s affidavit states that he exhausted his administrative remedies by complying with both steps. However, appellant did not provide a copy of the written decision from the grievance system; and appellant’s affidavit did not state the dates that his grievance was filed and the written decision was received.
The legislature enacted Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code to govern inmate litigation. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 14.005(a) (Vernon 2002) requires that the inmate attach both (1) an affidavit or unsworn declaration stating the date the grievance was filed and the date the written decision was received by the inmate and (2) a copy of the written decision from the grievance system. An inmate must prove that he exhausted all administrative remedies within the penal grievance system before initiating a lawsuit. Wallace v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division, 36 S.W.3d 607, 610 (Tex.App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet’n den’d). If the claim does not comply with Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, it can be dismissed. See Sanders v. Palunsky, 36 S.W.3d 222, 226 (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet’n).
Appellant did not establish that he exhausted his remedies because he did not provide the trial court with a copy of the written decision from the grievance system. Appellant also did not provide the trial court with the date the grievance was filed and the written decision was received. Because appellant did not prove that he exhausted his remedies and complied with Chapter 14 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, the trial court did not err in dismissing appellant’s claims.
The court correctly refused to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. TEX.R.CIV.P. 296 did not apply when the trial court dismissed the case, under Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, without holding a fact hearing. Retzlaff v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 94 S.W.3d 650, 655 (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet’n den’d).
All of appellant’s contentions on appeal have been considered by this court. Each argument is overruled.
The order of the trial court is affirmed.
TERRY McCALL
JUSTICE
July 15, 2004
Not designated for publication. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(a).
Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and
Wright, J., and McCall, J.