Opinion
No. 09-09-00021-CV
Opinion Delivered February 26, 2009.
Original Proceeding.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., KREGER and HORTON, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Matthew D. Whitmire filed a petition for writ of mandamus that raises a denial of due process claim in connection with the collection of court costs out of his inmate trust fund account. We deny relief.
A $268.00 cost bill issued in Whitmire's criminal case. On January 31, 2006, the trial court signed an order to pay a percentage of each month's deposits to Whitmire's inmate trust fund account until the costs were paid. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 501.014 (Vernon 2004). On or about September 22, 2006, Whitmire filed a motion to vacate the order. In the motion, Whitmire did not contest the amount of the costs assessed or his duty to pay the cost bill, but argued his inability to pay the court costs should be taken into consideration. Whitmire argued that because he cannot secure employment while incarcerated, the effect of withdrawing 10% of the funds in his account each month is to require his family to pay the costs. The trial court denied the motion on October 4, 2006. Whitmire filed notice of appeal almost two years after the trial court denied the motion. We dismissed the appeal because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. See Whitmire v. State, No. 09-08-00405-CV, 2008 WL 4936988, *1 (Tex.App.-Beaumont Nov. 20, 2008, no pet.).
An intentional deprivation of property does not violate the Due Process Clause if the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984). Here, Whitmire had at his disposal an adequate post-deprivation remedy; namely, a motion for relief that was heard by the trial court. In this case, Whitmire failed to prove that the post-deprivation remedy available to him was an inadequate means of addressing the matters he raised in his petition. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
PETITION DENIED.