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
Original Court Document: View Document
Curtis R. Francis appeals the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees Danny Horton and Deborah Ford. Francis contends that the trial court erred because the appellees’ motion did not pertain to the legal theories he had pled at that time. This case marks the third appeal, stemming from a 2004 pro se petition by Francis, an inmate, against the appellees and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID), alleging common law torts and Texas constitutional violations under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). Initially, the trial court dismissed all claims, but on appeal, the dismissal related to a September 2004 prison grievance was reversed. After remand, separate motions for summary judgment were filed by the defendants, which did not address Francis’ constitutional claims. The trial court granted these motions, leading to another appeal, after which summary judgment was affirmed for TDCJ-CID and partially for the appellees on federal civil rights claims but reversed concerning Texas constitutional claims. In September 2007, Francis amended his petition to include a negligence claim about denial of access to the court and sought only injunctive and declaratory relief regarding his constitutional claims. A second amended petition in January 2008 abandoned previous legal theories and focused on personal injury claims related to the alleged misuse of law books and a request form, claiming immunity was waived under the TTCA. In March 2008, the appellees filed a summary judgment motion addressing only the earlier constitutional claims, not the new allegations. The trial court granted this motion in May 2008, dismissing all claims against the appellees with prejudice. Francis subsequently filed a motion for a new trial and a timely notice of appeal. Summary judgment is deemed improper when the defendant fails to conclusively negate an essential element of the cause of action. A trial court cannot grant summary judgment on grounds not raised in the motion, warranting remand if it does. When a plaintiff amends their petition to introduce new legal theories, the defendant's summary judgment motion must address these new claims. In this case, the appellees’ motion only addressed claims under the Texas Constitution, which had been abandoned by the appellant prior to the motion. Consequently, the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on the appellant’s remaining personal injury claim under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). The appellate court sustains the appellant's challenges to the trial court’s summary judgment and denial of a new trial, reversing the judgment and remanding the remaining claim for further proceedings.