Curtis R. Francis v. TDCJ-CID, Danny Horton and Deborah Ford

Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-05-00258-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 8, 2006; Texas; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Curtis R. Francis, an inmate, appealed the trial court's dismissal of his claims against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice—Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID) and employees Danny Horton and Deborah Ford. The trial court dismissed the claims without prejudice, citing frivolousness under Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code due to Francis's alleged failure to meet procedural requirements. Francis contested this, asserting he complied with Section 14.005 by providing necessary information, filed within the statute of limitations, and argued that dismissals under these circumstances are unprecedented in Texas appellate courts.

The Court of Appeals applied an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the trial court's decision. It found that the trial court acted unreasonably in dismissing Francis's claim related to a grievance decision from September 27, 2004, and reversed that part of the judgment, remanding it for trial. However, it upheld the dismissal of all other claims. The analysis highlighted that under Chapter 14, a claim can be dismissed as frivolous if it has little chance of success, lacks legal or factual basis, or is similar to previous claims. An inmate must also adhere to specific procedural requirements when filing a claim associated with the grievance system, including submitting an affidavit about the grievance timeline and a copy of the grievance decision.

A claim must be filed within thirty-one days after an inmate receives the written decision on grievances. Appellees argued that Appellant did not provide the necessary affidavit or written grievance decisions as required by Section 14.005(a), which led to a lack of information for the trial court to assess whether Appellant exhausted administrative remedies or filed his suit timely. Appellant had submitted grievances that went through both Step 1 and Step 2 of the grievance process, including claims of civil rights violations and denial of access to law books. While Appellant included copies of the grievance decisions from Steps 1 and 2, he failed to provide an affidavit or unsworn declaration with the specific dates of filing and receiving the decisions.

Appellant contended that the trial court abused its discretion by asserting he had provided all necessary information and filed within the statutory limit. The grievance decision dated September 27, 2004, confirmed compliance with the thirty-one-day requirement, as the decision must have been made before Appellant could have received it. Thus, the Appellees' claims of insufficient information were incorrect regarding the timeliness of Appellant's filing. Previous cases, such as Draughon v. Cockrell and Lamotte v. Wickersham, upheld dismissals for lack of affidavits, while Bishop v. Lawson presented a contrasting situation where an inmate provided summaries without the decisions.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the inmate’s claim related to certain grievance decisions but did err in dismissing the claim based on the September 27, 2004 decision. The court noted that many other cases, including Draughon and Teague v. Seagroves, highlighted the necessity of providing specific dates related to the receipt of grievance decisions to determine if claims were filed timely under section 14.005(b). In those cases, missing dates led to dismissals, as courts could not ascertain compliance with the thirty-one-day filing requirement. However, in this case, while the Appellant included copies of written decisions, the critical date was not explicitly stated. The September 27, 2004 decision suggested compliance with the filing deadline, warranting a reversal of dismissal for that specific claim. Conversely, for the September 13 and 23, 2004 decisions, the required information was lacking, and the court upheld the dismissal, consistent with prior case law. The ruling emphasizes the importance of inmates providing complete information to ensure their claims are considered valid.

Appellant's initial two subissues regarding dismissal claims are overruled. In the third subissue, Appellant contends that no Texas intermediate court has dismissed a suit where an inmate exhausted his claim and filed within the time limit. However, it is established that Appellant did not demonstrate that he filed the relevant claims from September 13 and September 23, 2004, within the required timeframe. Previous cases, including Teague, support the dismissal of similar claims, leading to the overruling of this subissue. In the fourth subissue, while Appellant argues that the legislature did not explicitly authorize dismissal under subsection 14.005(a), the court finds implicit authorization for dismissal in such cases. The court cites Bishop, where a trial court's dismissal due to an inmate's noncompliance with a similar subsection was upheld as not an abuse of discretion. Consequently, the fourth subissue is also overruled. The court affirms the trial court's judgment regarding the claims based on the September 13 and September 23 grievance decisions but reverses the judgment and remands for trial concerning the claim based on the September 27, 2004, grievance decision. Justice Livingston dissents without opinion.