Opinion
NO. 09-11-00283-CV
04-05-2012
ROBERT E. MACLAREN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, CONROE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND MONTGOMERY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Appellees
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 10-07-07934 CV
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Robert E. MacLaren, acting pro se, sued the State of Texas, the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), the Conroe Police Department, and the Montgomery County Sheriff's Department (MCSD), claiming that they had failed to return his personal property taken after his arrest. On March 2, 2011, the trial court quashed the citation served on the DPS based on the DPS's motion claiming that it had not properly been served. The trial court also ordered MacLaren, by April 15, 2011, to amend his pleadings to specify the amount he sought to recover and to specify his claims against the MCSD. The trial court also ordered that MacLaren appear on April 15, 2011, to "show cause why this case should not be dismissed for want of prosecution."
MacLaren failed to appear at the hearing on April 15, 2011. On that same date, the trial court entered an order dismissing MacLaren's suit against the State of Texas and the Conroe Police Department. With respect to the remaining parties, the MCSD and the DPS, the trial court signed a docket control order that required, among other things, the parties to call the court coordinator on June 14, 2011, and announce for a trial scheduled to begin on June 20, 2011. The docket control order warns that the "[f]ailure to appear as required for any docket will result in dismissal of the case with no further notice." On June 14, 2011, MacLaren failed to appear by calling in his announcement for trial; on that same date, the trial court dismissed MacLaren's claims against the MCSD and the DPS.
MacLaren's sole issue on appeal addresses whether he properly served the DPS. However, MacLaren does not challenge the trial court's decision to dismiss his suit against the DPS for his failure to appear, as ordered, for the June 14, 2011, docket call. MacLaren also does not challenge the trial court's orders dismissing the MCSD, the State of Texas, or the Conroe Police Department.
First, we address MacLaren's failure to challenge the orders which resulted in the dismissal of his claims. The trial court's dismissal against the DPS was not based on the issue he has raised on appeal—whether he failed to perfect proper service; instead, the trial court dismissed MacLaren's suit against the DPS for failing to appear on June 14, 2011, for docket call. MacLaren's argument regarding whether he properly perfected service on the DPS, even if the argument were to have merit, is not an error in this case that probably led the trial court to render an improper judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.1. Moreover, a court of appeals cannot address unassigned error, and MacLaren has not challenged the bases of any of the trial court's orders of dismissal. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1; Pat Baker Co., Inc. v. Wilson, 971 S.W.2d 447, 450 (Tex. 1998) (prohibiting appellate courts from addressing unassigned error).
Based on the issue raised, and having concluded that MacLaren has not shown the trial court rendered an improper judgment, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
AFFIRMED.
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.