Carissa L. Beene v. David Puryear, Cynthia Bourland, Scott Field, Keith Henneke, and David Escamilla

Citation: Not availableDocket: 04-19-00373-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; March 11, 2020; Texas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Carissa L. Beene appealed a trial court's dismissal of her lawsuit against Keith Henneke and David Escamilla under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). Beene contended that the trial court improperly applied the TCPA to her claims and wrongly upheld the defense of absolute prosecutorial immunity asserted by the appellees. The case stemmed from a contempt ruling against attorney Adam Reposa, which Beene challenged through a writ of habeas corpus. The State, represented by Escamilla and Henneke, filed a petition in the Third Court of Appeals, resulting in an emergency stay of Beene's habeas proceedings. Following a series of legal actions, including a second habeas application and subsequent court orders, Beene initiated her lawsuit in September 2018, alleging abuse of process and libel. The trial court, after a hearing and additional briefing, dismissed the case, finding that the TCPA applied, the defendants acted within their official capacity, and absolute immunity was established. Beene was ordered to pay $9,240.53 in attorney’s fees. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.

A party involved in a legal action related to another party's exercise of the right to petition may seek dismissal under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). The dismissal process involves two steps: first, the moving party must demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the case concerns the other party's right to petition. Next, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to provide clear and specific evidence establishing a prima facie case for each claim element. If the TCPA is applicable and the plaintiff meets this burden, the trial court must still dismiss the case if the defendant proves a valid defense by a preponderance of the evidence. The review of these determinations is conducted de novo, favoring the nonmovant's perspective.

In Beene's case, she argued that the TCPA did not apply because the affidavit of the trial judge was not a communication from Escamilla and Henneke. However, under TCPA definitions, the right of petition includes communications related to judicial proceedings, and the affidavit submitted by Escamilla and Henneke was indeed related to an ongoing judicial matter. Beene failed to provide case law supporting her claim that the communication must originate from the defendant rather than a third party.

In addressing the issue of absolute immunity, Beene contended that Escamilla and Henneke should not be protected by immunity because they were not prosecuting a criminal case and were acting as investigators or witnesses. Nonetheless, the law grants absolute immunity to district attorneys and prosecutors when performing their prosecutorial duties, extending this protection to assistants involved in similar functions.

Common-law immunity for prosecutors is rooted in the same principles as the immunities of judges and grand jurors, aimed at preventing harassment from frivolous lawsuits that could distract them from their duties and compromise their independent judgment. Prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity for actions integral to the judicial process, which includes activities closely associated with it. This immunity is upheld even if the prosecutor acts in bad faith or with ulterior motives, provided they are performing their prosecutorial functions. 

In this case, Beene claims that prosecutors Escamilla and Henneke lacked immunity because they were not prosecuting a criminal action during a show cause hearing. However, it was determined that they did participate by filing a motion on behalf of the State related to the hearing, which is recognized as an integral judicial action. The courts have also held that actions taken by prosecutors in contempt proceedings are entitled to absolute immunity since such proceedings follow criminal procedures and are quasi-criminal in nature. 

Beene's assertion that the prosecutors acted merely as investigators was countered by the recognition that immunity can extend to investigative functions that involve legal knowledge and discretion. Actions taken to enforce court orders, like the one related to the stay granted by the Third Court of Appeals, are also considered prosecutorial functions. Ultimately, the affidavit filed by the prosecutors was integral to the contempt hearing, reinforcing their entitlement to immunity. The trial court's order was affirmed based on the applicability of the TCPA and the valid defense established by the prosecutors.