law-prisoner-suits and inmate appeals | in forma pauperis IFP | also find pro se litigants suits and appeals |
Texas Caselaw |
INMATE LITIGATION | PRISONER LAWSUITS AND APPEALS |
RECENT TEXAS SUPREME COURT OPINIONS
Garrett v. Borden, No. 08-0506 (Tex. May 1, 2009)(per curiam)(statutory construction; what qualifies as a
copy of a grievance decision required by the applicable prison inmate litigation statute?)(exhaustion of
administrative remedies).
Higgings v. Randall County Sheriff's Office (Higgins II), No. 06-0917 (Tex. May 16, 2008)
(Opinion by Harriet O'Neill) (prisoner suit, defective affidavit of indigence, right to appeal)
Justice Green delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Wainwright and Justice Willett joined.
(Justice Johnson not sitting)
Houser v. McElveen, No. 06-0504 (Tex. Jan. 11, 2008)(per curiam)
(appellate procedure, timeliness of notice of appeal, prisoner suit)
Springer v. Springer, No. 06-0382, 240 SW3d 871 (Tex. Nov. 2, 2007)(per curiam)
(timelines for appeal, affidavit of indigence)
Sprowl v. Payne, No. 06-0533 (Tex. Nov. 2, 2007)(per curiam)(appellate procedure, payment for record,
indigence)
Ramos v. Richardson, No. 06-0336, 228 SW3d 671 (Tex. Jun. 29, 2007)(per curiam)
(prisoner suit, timeliness of notice of appeal)
PETITIONS DENIED BY THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT IN PRISONER APPEALS
09-0718
R.W. ROGERS, SR. v. LAYNE HARWELL AND NELDA HARRIS; from Tarrant County; 2nd district (02-08-
00376-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 05-28-09, pet denied Oct 2009)
(prisoner's malpractice suit against criminal defense attorney properly dismissed, DNA evidence issue,
dismissal with prejudice as opposed without prejudice)
09‑0507
CARLOS A.L. VAUGHN v. NATRENIA L. HICKS, ET AL.; from Anderson County;
14th district (14‑08‑00726‑CV, ___ SW3d ___, 04‑16‑09)
Vaughn v. Hicks (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 16, 2009, pet. denied Oct 2009)(per curiam)
(pro se prisoner suit should have been dismissed without prejudice, rather than with prejudice)
09‑0624 BOBBY LUCKY v. KITCHEN CAPTAIN HAINES ET AL.; from Taylor County;
11th district (11‑08‑00252‑CV, ___ SW3d ___, 05‑07‑09, pet. denied Oct 2009)
(inmate suit re: contaminated food, dismissal affirmed)
09-0578
MICHAEL KENNEDY v. CHARLES STEEN AND DETECTIVE MUNNIZ, IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; from Anderson County; 14th district (14-08-00603-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 06-18-09, pet. denied
Sep 2009) (prison inmate litigation dismissal)
08-0981
KIRK WAYNE MCBRIDE, SR. v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE - CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, ET AL.; from Bee County; 13th district (13-07-00130-CV & 13-07-00305-CV, ___
SW3d ___, 08-28-08)(inmate litigation, prisoner suits, pro se litigants, plea to the jurisdiction)
Kirk Wayne McBride, Sr. an inmate confined in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional
Division ("TDCJ"), appeals from the dismissal of his pro se, in forma pauperis lawsuit against TDCJ, the
University of Texas Medical Branch ("UTMB"), and several members of the medical staff at the McConnell
Unit of the TDCJ. The trial court granted a summary judgment with regard to McBride's claims against the
McConnell Unit medical staff, and a plea to the jurisdiction in favor of TDCJ and UTMB. In two issues,
McBride contends that the medical staff was not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, and that
the trial court erred in granting TDCJ's and UTMB's pleas to the jurisdiction. We affirm.
08-0573
MICHAEL LOU GARRETT v. LARRY E. BERGER, ET AL.; from Wichita County; 2nd district
(02-08-00030-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 06-19-08)(pro se prisoner suit, inmate litigation, temporary injunction
appeal)
08-0368
KIRK WAYNE MC BRIDE, SR. v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE-CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, ET AL.; from Bee County; 13th district (13-05-00391-CV & 13-05-00392-CV, ___
SW3d ___, 02-28-08, pet. denied Aug. 2008)(prisoner suit, DTPA consumer law)
Pro se appellant, Kirk Wayne McBride, Sr., sued appellees, Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) for
violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA); Thomas J. Prasifka, Denise Menchaca, and William
Stephens for (1) the common law tort of conversion, (2) deprivation of personal property under the
Fourteenth Amendment, and (3) assumpsit; and K. M. Weseman for denial of adequate medical treatment
under the Eighth Amendment. The trial court dismissed McBride's claims against the TDCJ and entered an
instructed verdict in favor of Weseman. The jury ruled in favor of appellees Prasifka, Menchaca, and
Stephens. (1) By seven issues, McBride complains that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to
support the jury's verdict and that the trial court erred by entering an instructed verdict in favor of Weseman,
not submitting an instruction on assumpsit, dismissing appellant's DTPA claim against TDCJ, overruling
appellant's motion for new trial, and denying appellant a judgment nihil dicit (2) against Stephens. (3) We
affirm.
While incarcerated at the McConnell Unit of the TDCJ, McBride purchased a word processor from a vendor
outside the prison. The mail room provided McBride with a returned package form explaining that a package
had not been approved and had been returned to the sender. Later, McBride was notified on a TDCJ
correspondence/contraband denial form that his package was denied because, among other things, it was
not "approved per offender property policy/warden." After appealing this denial with the Director's Review
Committee, McBride sued appellees. The trial court dismissed McBride's claim against the TDCJ under
Chapter 14 of the Civil Practices and Remedies Code, and a jury trial began on his claims against the
remaining defendants. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann § 14.003(a)(2) (Vernon 2002). The trial court
entered an instructed verdict in favor of Weseman, and the jury ruled in favor of Prasifka, Menchaca, and
Stephens.
08-0327
WOODROW WILSON WILLIAMS v. WARDEN J. MOONEYHAM, OSCAR E. PAUL, STANLEY MCMILLER,
SEAN PALMER; from Wichita County; 2nd district (02-06-00348-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 01-31-08, pet. denied
Jun 2008) (inmate suit dismissed with prejudice)
08-0092
MICHAEL E. GEIGER v. BETTY WILLIAMS, ET AL.; from Houston County; 12th district
(12-07-00198-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 12-12-07, pet. denied Jun 2008)(pro se suit, inmate litigation, prisoner
suit dismissed, due process, equal protection arguments)
Michael E. Geiger appeals the dismissal of his civil suit against five employees of the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice and six employees of the Medical Branch of the University of Texas. In four issues, Geiger
argues that the trial court did not apply the correct legal standards or principles when it dismissed his lawsuit
and that his due process and equal protection rights were violated. Appellees did not file a brief. We affirm
the trial court’s order of dismissal. Geiger is an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ).
On February 25, 2007, Geiger,proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit against Appellees.
07-0833
BRUCE WAYNE HOUSER v. PAULA S. FOY, ET AL.; from Jefferson County; 9th district
(09-06-00257-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 05-24-07, pet. denied March 2008) (pro se litigants, prisoner suits)
Bruce Wayne Houser, a pro se inmate proceeding in forma pauperis, appeals an order dismissing his lawsuit
for failure to comply with Chapter 14 of theTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. &
Rem. Code Ann. §§ 14.001-.014 (Vernon 2002). Asserting claims of denial of access to the courts,
interference with his mail, and violations of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's mail policy, Houser
sued sixteen defendants. (1) Appellees filed a motion to dismiss asserting that Houser's suit was not in
compliance with the requirements of Chapter 14. We review dismissal of Chapter 14 suits under an abuse of
discretion standard. Moore v. Zeller, 153 S.W.3d 262, 263 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2004, pet. denied).
07-0704
CHARLES K. SALLIE v. JOHN DOE, ET AL.; from Wichita County; 2nd district (02-06-00370-CV, ___ SW3d
___, 08-09-07, pet. denied Jan 2008) (motion for appointment of counsel alternatively, for renewal or
reconsideration denied (prisoner suit, medication treatment, dismissal for want of prosecution, appointment
of counsel denied)
Having overruled Appellant's first, third, and fourth issues, and not reaching his second and fifth issues, we
affirm the trial court's order of dismissal for want of prosecution. We deny Appellant's Motion for
Reconsideration of Appointment of Counsel, Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary
Injunction, Motion for Leave to File and Amended Complaint Adding Some More Parties, Pursuant to Rules
of Civ. Pro., Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint, and Motion Requesting Appointment of
Expert Witness.
APPELLATE CASE LAW LINKS
law ADR-family-law
law ADR
law DSA
law HCLC
law ILA
law TTCA
law WBA
law animals
law arbitration
law attorney-client-disputes
law attorneys-fees
law breach-of-warranty
law child-support
law citation
law civil-commitment
law class-actions
law condemnation
law construction
law consumer-law
law contract
law default-judgment
law discovery-disputes
law discovery-presuit
law divorce-property-division
law domestication-enforcement-of-foreign-judgment
law election-law
law employment
law estoppel
law family-law-international
law family-law
law foreclosure
law forum-selection
law governmental-entities-local
law governmental-entities-state-agencies
law governmental-immunity
law home-owner
law individual-capacity
law informed-consent
law insurance-business-regulation
law insurance-duty-to-defend-indemnify
law jury-selection
law juveniles
law leases
law liens
law limitations
law motion-for-new-trial
law motion-to-reinstate
law nonsuit
law official-capacity
law parental-rights
law parol-evidence-rule
law plenary-power
law post-divorce-actions
law premises-liability
law prisoner-suits
law pro-se-suits
law probate
law product-liability
law property-taxes
law public-employment
law recusal
law religion
law residential-construction
law restricted-appeal
law ripeness-doctrine
law sanctions
law sovereign-immunity
law special-appearance
law standing-doctrine
law statutory-construction
law temporary-orders-TRO
law termination-of-parental-rights
law test-for-abuse-of-discretion
law unauthorized-practice-of-law-UPLC
law venue
law water
law workers-comp
law workplace-injury