NO. 12-05-00294-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
JESSE PAUL SKINNER, § APPEAL FROM THE THIRD
APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
T.D.C.J.–I.D.,
APPELLEE § HOUSTON COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Jesse Paul Skinner, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Institutional Division (TDCJ), proceeding pro se, filed an in forma pauperis suit against TDCJ. Skinner appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his suit pursuant to Section 14.003 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Skinner raises two issues on appeal. We affirm.
Background
Skinner is an inmate at the Eastham Unit in Lovelady, Texas. While performing work duty as an inmate at TDCJ, Skinner was injured when scaffolding fell on his head. Skinner filed a civil suit against TDCJ, alleging causes of action for personal injury under Section 101.021(2) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. In his suit, Skinner alleged that TDCJ was negligent in furnishing inadequate, inappropriate, and defective scaffolding. Skinner sought “unliquidated damages” for his injury and physical pain and any other fees or relief to which he may be entitled.
On June 29, 2005, without conducting a hearing, the trial court found that Skinner’s suit was frivolous or malicious and dismissed it without prejudice pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Section 14.003. This appeal followed.
Dismissal Pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 14
In two issues, Skinner argues that the trial court’s dismissal was improper. Specifically, Skinner alleges that the trial court erred when it “acted without reference to guiding rules or principles as having no arguable basis in law” and when it dismissed his claim without conducting a hearing.
Standard of Review
We review the trial court’s dismissal of an in forma pauperis suit under an abuse of discretion standard. Hickson v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397, 398 (Tex. App.–Waco 1996, no writ). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily, capriciously, and without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Lentworth v. Trahan, 981 S.W.2d 720, 722 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.). The trial courts are given broad discretion to determine whether a case should be dismissed because (1) prisoners have a strong incentive to litigate, (2) the government bears the cost of an in forma pauperis suit, (3) sanctions are not effective, and (4) the dismissal of unmeritorious claims accrues to the benefit of state officials, courts, and meritorious claimants. See Montana v. Patterson, 894 S.W.2d 812, 814-15 (Tex. App.–Tyler 1994, no writ). We will affirm a dismissal if it was proper under any legal theory. Johnson v. Lynaugh, 796 S.W.2d 705, 706-07 (Tex. 1990).
Applicable Law and Discussion
Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code controls suits brought by an inmate in which the inmate has filed an affidavit or unsworn declaration of inability to pay costs.1 Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.002(a) (Vernon 2002); Hickson, 926 S.W.2d at 398. Prison inmates who file suits in Texas state courts pro se and who seek to proceed in forma pauperis must comply with numerous procedural requirements set forth in Chapter 14 of the Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 14.001, 14.004-.006 (Vernon 2002). A failure to fulfill those procedural requirements will result in dismissal of an inmate’s action. See Lilly v. Northrep, 100 S.W.3d 335, 336 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2002, pet. denied). Because Skinner brought the underlying lawsuit pro se and filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis, he was required to fulfill the various procedural requirements set forth in Chapter 14 of the Code.
Section 14.005 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code requires that an inmate who files a claim that is subject to the grievance system established under Section 501.008 of the Texas Government Code file with the court (1) an affidavit or unsworn declaration stating the date the grievance was filed and the date the written decision described by Section 501.008(d) was received by the inmate as well as (2) a copy of the written decision from the grievance system. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.005(a)(1), (2). Skinner’s claim is subject to the inmate grievance system. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 501.008(a) (Vernon 2004). Skinner filed a document entitled “Plaintiff’s Declaration Relating to Previous Filing.” There, he stated that he had filed “a grievance for the claim subject to this suit” and that he had received the written decision on January 26, 2005. He also included a copy of the grievance forms.2 He did not, however, state the date that the grievance was filed as required by Section 14.005(a)(1). Section 14.005 is clear in its requirement of both an affidavit and copies of the grievance form. “[I]t is incumbent on the inmate to provide the required information before it comes to the trial court for review. This is especially true because Section 501.008 of the Government Code precludes an inmate from filing a claim until he has exhausted his remedies through the grievance system.” See Smith v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice–Inst’l Div., 33 S.W.3d 338, 341 (Tex. App.– Texarkana 2000, pet. denied); see also Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 501.008(d). Compliance with Section 14.005 is a prerequisite to judicial review of inmate claims. See Retzlaff v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 94 S.W.3d 650, 652 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied). Because Skinner failed to comply with the statutory requirement of Section 14.005, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the suit. Lilly, 100 S.W.3d at 336. Accordingly, we overrule Skinner’s issues one and two.
Disposition
Having overruled both of Skinner’s issues, we affirm the trial court’s dismissal order.
DIANE DEVASTO
Justice
Opinion delivered May 26, 2006.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and DeVasto, J.
(DO NOT PUBLISH)
1 Chapter 14 does not apply to suits brought under the Family Code. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.002(b) (Vernon 2002).
2 We note that the copies of grievances Skinner attached contain dates, but we are unable to discern if these are the dates the grievances were filed. The grievance documents have such entries as "UGI Recd Date," "HG Recd Date," and "Date Due," but contain no explanation of those terms or their significance.