IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TWELFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT TYLER
No. 12-14-00016-Cjp;:
12th Court of Appealss District
JUAN ENRIQUEZ, 1
1 rA'K r ^f LT^ A
Appellant,
i
v.
CATHY 3. LU3K, qLEil[K
RICK THALER,
Appellees
APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF
SAVINGS CLAUSE OF SECTION 15.019, TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM. CODE
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:
Juan Enriquez, Appellant, pursuant to the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure and the Texas Rules of Evidence, moves the
Court to take judicial notice of the Savings Clause of Section
15.019, Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem. Code, averring as grounds the
following:
I.
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether the
district court of Travis County had authority to transfer this
J
lawsuit, which raises an on-going tort of racial
discrimination and segregation commencing in 1972 when Plaintiff
was placed in prison, to Anderson County where Plaintiff is
currently housed. The district court relied, on Section
15.019, Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem. Code to transfer venue. However,
Section 15.019, supra, has a Savings Clause which limits the
application of the statute to claims which accrued after its
enactment in 1995:
This Act applies only to a cause of action that accrues
on or after the effective date of this action. An action
that accrued before the effective date of this act is
governed by the law applicable to the action as it existed
immediately before the effective date of this Act and
that law is continued in effect for that purpose.
Section 10(a) of Section 15.019, Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem. Code.
II.
In their Appellees' Brief, Defendants argued:
Here, the lower court below was correct it is
reasoning and judgment when it found that 'the
legislature intended that any litigation brought
by an inmate will be brought in the county in which
the facility is located.
Brief for Appellees at 21-22.
The Appellant has the right to address the argument raised
by Appellees. The Appellees' statement is false on its face.
The legislature limited litigation to claims that accrued after
the 1995 effective date of Section 15.019, supra. Appellant's
Reply Brief addressed this issue.
III.
This Court, since Appellant filed his Reply Brief, struck
the Appendix to Appellees' Brief, which was the Reporter's
Record of the hearing of Defendants' motion to transfer venue.
The Court also overuled Appellant's motion to make the transfer
venue hearing a part of the record on appeal. The result is that
this appeal is proceeding without an essential part of the
record, which the State, via, its hearing judge, the travis
county district clerk, and the reporter of the hearing withheld
from the record. This puts this appeal at risk. There is simply
no justifiable reason for this Court to allow an appeal to
proceed without an essential part of the record, not when the
Plaintiff brought his problems in obtaining the record from
Travis County.
IV.
Paragraph 9 of the Complaint in this action reflects that
"Defendants' predecessors in the 1970s operated racially
segregated prisons in violation of the state and federal
constitutions." That is over 20 years before 1995 when the
inmate transfer statute was enacted. The claim is not subject
to dispute in venue transfer proceedings.
Appellees' Brief acknowledges Plaintiff's claim:
Appellant alleges that Appellees have maintained and
operated a racially segregated and racially
discriminatory prison system which discriminates
against Hispanics by denying them equal education
opportunities and rehabilitative programs, housing
them in segregated facilities, assigning jobs on
the basis of race and color, denying the equal medical
and dental treatment and disciplining them with harsher
punishments.
Appellees' Brief, at 4.
The Appellees also recognize that "Appellant further
claims that Appellees have a policy in place regarding the
supervision of their units that denies equal treatment and
servises to Hispanics that are 'provided routinely to Anglo
inmates.' Appellees' Brief, at 4.
V.
The transfer order in this case is a nullity. The Travis
County district court did not have a jurisdictional base on which
to base its venue transfer order.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant requests the
Court to take judicial notice of the controlling law in this
appeal, namely, Section 10(a) of Section 15.015, Tex.Civ.Prac.
& Rem. Code.
Respectfully submitted,
m Enriquez^
'122
TDCJ-Michael
2664 FM 2054 ^
Tennessee Colony, TX 75886
Certificate of Service
I, Juan Enriquez, certify taht a correct copy of the
foregoing motion was served by placing same in the United
States mail, postage prepaid, on June 2, 2015, addressed to
Briana Webb, Assistant Attorney General, P. 0. Box 12548,
Capitol Station, Austin, TX 78711.
Mailbox Rule Filing Verification
I, Juan Enriquez, declare under penalty of perjury, that
the foregoing motion was filed on June 2, 2015, by placing same
in the Institutional Mail System, first class mail, postage
prepaid, addressed to Clerk, Twelfth Court of Appeals,
1257 West Front Street, Suit 354, Tyler, TX 75702. Executed
on June 2, 2015.
^l^O
n Enriquez