NO. 12-06-00278-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
R. THOMAS WILLIAMS, § APPEAL FROM THE 349TH
APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF
HENRY F. REECE, ET AL,
APPELLEES § HOUSTON COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
R. Thomas Williams appeals the dismissal of his civil suit against four employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Institutional Division. In two issues, Williams argues that the trial court did not apply the correct legal standards or principles when it dismissed his lawsuit and that it should have held a hearing. We affirm the trial court’s order of dismissal.
Background
Williams is an inmate in the Eastham Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Institutional Division (TDCJ). On April 25, 2006, Williams, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit against Appellees Henry Reece, II, Terrie Dove, Betty Wade, Aundra Hamilton, and Julie Williams, all of whom he alleges are employees of the TDCJ. In his petition, Williams sought a declaratory judgment as well as compensatory and punitive damages for an alleged assault and other acts of misconduct, all of which he alleged violated his constitutional rights and were done under color of state or federal law.
On June 8, 2006, the trial court dismissed Williams’s suit without prejudice as to all claims and gave the following reasons in its order: (1) Williams failed to file an affidavit describing the information required by section 14.004, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, (2) Williams failed to file the claim before the thirty–first day after he received a written decision from the TDCJ administrative grievance system pursuant to section 14.005, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, and (3) Williams failed to file a certified copy of the trust account statement required by section 14.006, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. This appeal followed.
Dismissal of Suit under Chapter 14
In two issues, Williams argues that the trial court should have held a hearing before dismissing the lawsuit and that the court erred in dismissing the lawsuit.
Analysis
Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code applies to a lawsuit brought by an inmate who has filed an affidavit or unsworn declaration of inability to pay costs and imposes several procedural requirements that must be met before such a lawsuit may proceed. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.002–14.006 (Vernon 2006). An inmate’s lawsuit may be dismissed if it fails to meet the procedural requirements imposed by chapter fourteen. See Thompson v. Rodriguez, 99 S.W.3d 328, 330 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2003, no pet.). Our review of the dismissal of an inmate lawsuit is for an abuse of discretion. See Williams v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice–Institutional Div., 176 S.W.3d 590, 593 (Tex. App.–Tyler 2005, pet. denied).
One of the procedural requirements imposed by the legislature for inmate lawsuits is that the inmate must file a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement with his affidavit or unsworn declaration. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 14.004(c), 14.006(f) (Vernon 2006). Williams did not comply with this requirement. Therefore, dismissal was appropriate. See Thompson, 99 S.W.3d at 330; Hughes v. Massey, 65 S.W.3d 743, 746 (Tex. App.–Beaumont 2001, no pet.); Williams v. Brown, 33 S.W.3d 410, 412 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).
A trial court’s decision as to whether to hold a hearing before the dismissal of an inmate’s lawsuit for failure to comply with the statutes governing such litigation is discretionary. See Moreland v. Johnson, 95 S.W.3d 392, 394 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.); Williams, 33 S.W.3d at 411; see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003(c) (Vernon 2006) (Court may hold hearing to determine whether case should be dismissed.). A hearing is not required prior to dismissal of an inmate’s lawsuit when the pleadings are procedurally deficient. See Gowan v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 99 S.W.3d 319, 323 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2003, no pet.); see also Moreland, 95 S.W.3d at 394 (Holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying an inmate the opportunity to supplement his petition before dismissing case.); Kendrick v. Lynaugh, 804 S.W.2d 153, 156 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no writ) (The trial court is under no duty to suggest or recommend that an appellant amend his pleading.). The trial court did not abuse its discretion by not holding a hearing in this case because the defect was clear and was wholly ascertainable from the record. See Thomas v. Bilby, 40 S.W.3d 166, 169 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 2001, no pet.).
Williams argues that the trial court’s dismissal was based on an overly technical reading of section 14.004 and that the requirement of a certified statement is unclear. Williams also argues that he filed a certified copy of his account statement and directs us to the clerk’s record. Neither argument is persuasive. The requirement of a certified account statement is exacting, but it serves an important role in allowing the trial court to determine if the litigant is indeed indigent and should be allowed to proceed without the payment of costs. See Hughes, 65 S.W.3d at 745 (“Section 14.006(f) serves a legitimate purpose of controlling the flood of frivolous lawsuits by requiring that the inmate substantiate his pauper’s status with a trust account statement.”). Williams is correct that the record contains a certified copy of his account statement. But that statement was prepared after the lawsuit was dismissed and filed in conjunction with his notice of appeal. Williams did not file the required certified statement with his lawsuit or before it was dismissed.
Because we have held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the lawsuit for Williams’s failure to file the required certified statement, we do not reach the other grounds enumerated by the trial court. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1; Williams v. Brown, 33 S.W.3d 410, 412 n.1 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). The trial court did not err when it dismissed Williams’s lawsuit without a hearing because there was a clear defect in the pleadings. We overrule Williams’s first and second issues.
Disposition
We affirm the trial court’s order of dismissal.
BRIAN HOYLE
Justice
Opinion delivered March 14, 2007.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(PUBLISH)