Opinion
No. 05-07-01256-CV
Opinion Filed August 7, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 07-04110-E.
Before Justices FITZGERALD, RICHTER, and LANG-MIERS.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Harvey Bramlett, Jr. challenges the trial court's order dismissing his claims against appellees for failure to comply with the statutory procedures for inmate litigation set forth in Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. In a single issue, Bramlett contends the trial court committed reversible error by dismissing his claims without a due process hearing. Because this issue involves the application of well-settled principles of law, we issue this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4. As modified, we affirm the trial court's order. Bramlett is an inmate confined in the Bill Clements Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in Amarillo, Texas. On May 4, 2007, Bramlett filed his original Petition for Injunctive Relief, Motion for Competency Hearing, Motion for the Appointment of Counsel and Special Investigative Services, and Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. In his Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, Bramlett declared he was "indigent and unable to prepay any cost of this action or to otherwise give any security thereof." Texas law requires an inmate plaintiff who declares he is unable to pay costs to file a separate affidavit or declaration:
(1) identifying each suit, other than a suit under the Family Code, previously brought by the person and in which the person was not represented by an attorney, without regard to whether the person was an inmate at the time the suit was brought; and
(2) describing each suit that was previously brought by:
(A) stating the operative facts for which relief was sought;
(B) listing the case name, cause number, and the court in which the suit was brought;
(C) identifying each party named in the suit; and
(D) stating the result of the suit, including whether the suit was dismissed as frivolous or malicious under Section 13.001 or Section 14.003 or otherwise.Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 14.004(a) (Vernon 2002). The purpose of section 14.004 is to curb "constant, often duplicative, inmate litigation in this state," by requiring the inmate to notify the trial court of previous litigation and its outcome. Bell v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice-Inst. Div., 962 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet.denied). Given that information, the trial court can determine whether the inmate has already filed a similar claim. See id. Bramlett failed to file an affidavit or declaration complying with section 14.004(a). On July 26, 2007, the trial court dismissed his claims without prejudice. In this Court, Bramlett argues the trial court erred by dismissing his claims without a due process hearing. We review the dismissal of a claim pursuant to chapter fourteen for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice-Inst. Div., 28 S.W.3d 811, 813 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2000, pet. denied). The role a hearing plays in such a dismissal is governed by statute. Specifically, in determining whether an inmate suit is frivolous, the trial court " may hold a hearing." Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code § 14.003(c) (emphasis added). However, when an inmate fails to comply with the affidavit requirements of section 14.004, the trial court is entitled to assume the suit is substantially similar to one previously filed by the inmate and, therefore, frivolous. Obadele v. Johnson, 60 S.W.3d 345, 348 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.) (citing Bell, 962 S.W.2d at 158). In such a case, when the court can make its determination on the basis of the record itself, there can be no abuse of discretion in dismissing the claim without a hearing. See Jackson, 28 S.W.3d at 814 (trial court does not abuse discretion in dismissing claim as frivolous when plaintiff fails to comply with requirements of section 14.004). Bramlett points out the trial court's order refers to a "Mr. Willis," who is not a party to this suit. The order states in relevant part:
Plaintiff Harvey Bramlett, Jr. is an inmate in the Texas Department of Corrections. Mr. Willis [sic] did not comply with the statutory procedures pertaining to inmate litigation as set forth in Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Due to this failure, the Court is of the opinion that Plaintiff Harvey Bramlett, Jr.'s claims should be dismissed.The second sentence's reference to "Mr. Willis" is clearly a clerical error in the order. This Court has the power to modify an incorrect order when we have the necessary information to do so. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b). Accordingly, we modify the trial court's dismissal order to reflect that the plaintiff's name, Harvey Bramlett, Jr., must be substituted for the mistaken reference to "Mr. Willis." As modified, we affirm the order of the trial court.
Bramlett's filings alleged his plea bargains in three criminal cases were contracts procured by fraud, deception, mistake, and undue influence. Bramlett claimed he had been mentally incompetent at the time and could not have entered the pleas voluntarily.
A dismissal for failure to comply with the conditions set out in section 14.004 is not a dismissal on the merits; it is instead an exercise of the trial court's discretion under chapter 14 of the civil practice and remedies code. Thomas v. Knight, 52 S.W.3d 292, 295 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied). When the inmate's error can be remedied through more specific pleading, the claim should be dismissed without prejudice to its re-filing. Id. at 296. The trial court in this case correctly dismissed Bramlett's claims without prejudice.