NO. 12-14-00251-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS
KENNETH CRISSUP, § APPEAL FROM THE 349TH
APPELLANT
V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
WILLIAM STEPHENS, ET AL,
APPELLEES § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM
Kenneth Crissup, who is an inmate and is proceeding pro se without payment of costs,
appeals from an order dismissing his lawsuit. We dismiss the appeal as frivolous.
INMATE LITIGATION–CHAPTER 14
Effective January 1, 2012, Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
was amended to apply to an action, including an appeal or an original proceeding, brought by an
inmate in a district, county, justice of the peace, or small claims court, or an appellate court in
which an affidavit of indigence is also filed. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 14.002
(West Supp. 2013). This means that the requirements of Chapter 14 apply when inmates file an
appeal or an original proceeding in an appellate court just as when they file an action in a trial
court. See id.
Chapter 14 requires an inmate to file an affidavit or declaration “relating to previous
filings” in which the inmate must detail all previous actions filed pro se, other than a suit under
the Texas Family Code. Id. § 14.004(a) (West Supp. 2013). The affidavit or declaration must be
accompanied by a certified copy of his “inmate trust account statement” that “reflect[s] the
balance of the account at the time the claim is filed and activity in the account during the six
months preceding the date on which the claim is filed.” Id. § 14.004(c) (West Supp. 2013). The
filings required under Chapter 14 are “an essential part of the process by which courts review
inmate litigation.” Hickson v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397, 399 (Tex. App.–Waco 1996, no writ).
If the inmate fails to file the affidavit or declaration with the required information about
previous filings or the inmate trust account statement, the trial court can dismiss the action
without notice or hearing. See, e.g., Amir-Sharif v. Mason, 243 S.W.3d 854, 857 (Tex. App.–
Dallas 2008, no pet.); Thompson v. Rodriguez, 99 S.W.3d 328, 330 (Tex. App.–Texarkana
2003, no pet.). Further, when an inmate fails to comply with the requirement for the affidavit or
declaration of previous filings, the trial court may assume that the current action is substantially
similar to one previously filed by the inmate and thus is frivolous. Bell v. Tex. Dep’t of
Criminal Justice–Institutional Div., 962 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.]
1998, pet. denied). We see no reason why this caselaw interpreting the Chapter 14 requirements
as they apply to actions filed in trial courts should not also now apply to actions filed in appellate
courts. See Douglas v. Turner, No. 10-13-00031-CV, 2013 WL 2245653, at *1 (Tex. App.–
Waco May 9, 2013, no pet.) (op., not yet released for publication).
In this appeal, Crissup did not file a copy of his inmate trust account statement and an
affidavit or declaration of previous filings. Because the requirements of Chapter 14 now apply to
inmate proceedings in the courts of appeals, caselaw permits us to dismiss Crissup’s appeal
without notice.
CONCLUSION
Crissup did not comply with the Chapter 14 requirement for a copy of his inmate trust
account statement and an affidavit or declaration of previous filings. Therefore, we dismiss this
appeal as frivolous. See Bell, 62 S.W.2d at 158.
Opinion delivered August 29, 2014.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
(PUBLISH)
2
COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUDGMENT
AUGUST 29, 2014
NO. 12-14-00251-CV
KENNETH CRISSUP,
Appellant
V.
WILLIAM STEPHENS, ET AL,
Appellees
Appeal from the 349th District Court
of Anderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 349-7261)
THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same
being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that
this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court
below for observance.
By per curiam opinion.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.