Opinion
No. 05-08-01041-CV
Opinion issued November 24, 2009.
On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. DF-08-00007.
Before Chief Justice WRIGHT and Justices RICHTER and FILLMORE.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Cleveland Green, III, an inmate appearing pro se, appeals the trial court's order dismissing his case for want of prosecution. In four issues, Green contends generally the trial court erred in dismissing his case and, thereby, denying him access to the courts. We reverse the trial court's order and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.
Green filed his original petition for divorce on January 2, 2008. Along with his petition, Green filed an affidavit of inability to pay costs. On January 14, 2008, the trial court sent Green a notice of dismissal setting a hearing for July 8, 2008. Green responded on February 5, 2008 by filing a good cause motion and request to proceed by affidavit, deposition, telephone, or other effective means. He sent a follow-up letter asking the clerk whether the trial court had received his motion. Green again filed his motion to appear by alternative means on April 18, 2008. The trial court did not rule on Green's motions. Instead, the trial court signed an order of dismissal for want of prosecution on July 10, 2008. This appeal timely followed.
We review a dismissal for want of prosecution under an abuse of discretion standard. See WMC Mortgage Corp. v. Starkey, 200 S.W.3d 749, 752 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2006, pet. denied). A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Id. at 752.
A trial court may dismiss a case for want of prosecution under rule 165a for failure to appear or failure to comply with the supreme court time standards. Tex. R. Civ. P. 165a(1), (2). In addition, a trial court has inherent power to dismiss a case for want of prosecution. See Villarreal v. San Antonio Truck Equip., 994 S.W.2d 628, 630 (Tex. 1999); Tex.R. Civ. P. 165a(4).
Although an inmate has a constitutional right to access the civil trial courts, that right is not absolute or without limits. In re Z.L.T., 124 S.W.3d 163, 165 (Tex. 2003); In re R.C.R., 230 S.W.3d 423, 426 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2007, no pet.). When a trial court determines an inmate should not be allowed to appear personally, the inmate should be allowed to proceed by affidavit, deposition, telephone, or other effective means. In re Marriage of Bolton, 256 S.W.3d 832, 833 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.); Boulden v. Boulden, 133 S.W.3d 884, 886-87 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.).
The record shows Green could not physically appear in court and, being indigent, he could not retain the services of an attorney to appear on his behalf. Green informed the trial court of these facts in his motions and letters. Green moved for alternative means of appearing. By requiring Green to appear at a hearing while not acting on his motion to conduct the hearing by telephone conference or other means, the trial court effectively closed the courthouse doors to him. Bolton, 256 S.W.3d at 834; Boulden, 133 S.W.3d at 886. We conclude, under these circumstances, the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the case for want of prosecution. We sustain Green's issues on appeal.
We reverse the trial court's order dismissing the case for want of prosecution and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.