Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Michael Scott v. Joseph Farrar, Darryl Glenn and S. Whatley
Citation: Not availableDocket: 01-06-00395-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; May 31, 2007; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Michael Scott, a prison inmate, appeals the denial of his claims against Joseph Farrar, Darryl Glenn, and S. Whatley, following a trial court ruling that dismissed his suit under Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Scott filed his suit on October 28, 2004, alleging denial of access to the law library. He later sought to transfer the venue to Potter County, claiming he mistakenly filed in Fort Bend County. The appellees moved to dismiss, arguing Scott failed to exhaust administrative remedies and did not file the required affidavit of previous suits. The trial court found his petition non-compliant with Chapter 14 and dismissed the case as frivolous. Scott contended the dismissal order was void due to lack of jurisdiction, asserting the incident occurred in Potter County. On appeal, he argues that the trial court's venue was improper, but the court clarified that improper venue does not constitute a jurisdictional defect that would render its order void. The ruling emphasizes that venue relates to the location of the suit, whereas subject-matter jurisdiction pertains to the court's authority to hear the case. The appeal was affirmed. Venue can be waived if not timely challenged, unlike subject-matter jurisdiction, which can be contested at any time. The appellant argues that his lawsuit should have been filed in Potter County, where the William P. Clements unit is located, per Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 15.019(a). However, prior rulings indicate that filing in a non-mandatory venue does not affect the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction or render its dismissal order void. Thus, the trial court maintained jurisdiction, and its dismissal of the appellant's claims is affirmed. The appellate record indicates that the trial court did not address the appellant's venue transfer motion, and the venue statute does not permit a plaintiff to transfer a case from an improperly chosen venue without a proper challenge. Ultimately, the plaintiff's choice of venue is fixed if not contested through a motion to transfer. The court upholds the trial court's decision.