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.
Curtis R. Francis v. Danny Horton and Deborah Ford
Citation: Not availableDocket: 02-08-00328-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 4, 2009; Texas; State Appellate Court
Curtis R. Francis appeals the trial court's decision to grant a summary judgment motion filed by defendants Danny Horton and Deborah Ford. Francis contends that the trial court erred by granting the motion, as it did not pertain to the legal theories he had previously asserted. The court reverses and remands the case. This appeal is the third in a series involving Francis, who initially filed a pro se petition in October 2004 against the defendants and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division, alleging common law torts and constitutional violations under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). The defendants' initial motions to dismiss led to a trial court ruling that was partially reversed on appeal, allowing some claims based on a prison grievance decision to proceed. After remand, the defendants filed separate summary judgment motions that did not address Francis's constitutional claims. The trial court granted these motions, which Francis appealed. The appellate court affirmed parts of the summary judgment but reversed others concerning his Texas constitutional claims. Subsequently, Francis amended his petition to include a negligence claim regarding access to court and clarified his request for injunctive and declaratory relief. In January 2008, he filed a second amended petition that abandoned prior constitutional and common law negligence claims, focusing instead on personal injury claims related to the alleged misuse of law books, arguing that this issue waived immunity under the TTCA. However, in March 2008, the defendants filed a summary judgment motion addressing only the earlier constitutional claims and not the newly stated claims. The trial court granted the defendants' motion in May 2008, dismissing all claims against them with prejudice. Francis subsequently appealed the ruling. The appellate court noted that a defendant is entitled to summary judgment only if they conclusively negate at least one essential element of a cause of action, indicating that the summary judgment in this instance was improper. A trial court cannot grant summary judgment based on grounds not included in the summary judgment motion, and if it does, the case should be remanded for further proceedings. In this case, the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on a personal injury claim under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) when the appellees’ motion only addressed claims under the Texas Constitution, which had been abandoned by the appellant at the time. Consequently, the appellate court sustained the appellant's challenges regarding the propriety of the summary judgment and the denial of the motion for a new trial, leading to the reversal of the trial court’s decision and remanding the remaining claim for further proceedings. The court noted that the appellant's original claims about confinement conditions were properly reasserted, and issues surrounding service of citation were addressed. The summary judgment was deemed final and appealable, despite the complexities involving the TTCA and other claims.