A trial court has the discretion to dismiss an inmate's lawsuit if the allegation of poverty in the indigence affidavit is false. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 14.003(a)(1) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.); Donaldson, 355 S.W.3d at 724; see also Zavala v. Salles, No. 13-18-00104-CV, 2018 WL 3386368, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi July 12, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that the trial court had not abused its discretion in dismissing the appellant's claim because the evidence supported a finding that the appellant had falsely claimed to be indigent); McGoldrick v. Velasquez, No. 13-12-00766-CV, 2013 WL 3895315, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi July 25, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (same). An inmate claiming to be indigent is required to file a certified copy of his inmate trust account "reflect[ing] the balance of the account at the time the claim is filed and activity in the account during the six months preceding the date on which the claim is filed."
A trial court has the discretion to dismiss an inmate's lawsuit if the allegation of poverty in the indigence affidavit is false. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 14.002(a), 14.003(a)(1) (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.); Donaldson, 355 S.W.3d at 724; see also Zavala v. Salles, No. 13-18-00104-CV, 2018 WL 3386368, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi July 12, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that the trial court had not abused its discretion in dismissing the appellant's claim because the evidence supported a finding that the appellant had falsely claimed to be indigent); McGoldrick v. Velasquez, No. 13-12-00766-CV, 2013 WL 3895315, at *1 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi July 25, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.). An inmate claiming to be indigent is required to file a certified copy of his inmate trust account "reflect[ing] the balance of the account at the time the claim is filed and activity in the account during the six months preceding the date on which the claim is filed."
Cf.Mendoza v. Livingston, No. 09-12-00594-CV, 2014 WL 670119, at *3 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Feb. 20, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (no abuse of discretion to dismiss based on false affidavit of indigence when the litigant had an account balance of $6.15, an average six-month balance of $32.21, and cash deposits in the prior six months totaling $690.00); McGoldrick v. Velasquez, No. 13-12-00766-CV, 2013 WL 3895315, at *1–2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi July 25, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (no abuse of discretion to dismiss based on false affidavit of indigence when the litigant had an average six-month balance of $36.18 and cash deposits in the prior six months totaling $453.42); Vega v. Tex. Dep't of Crim. Justice–Corr.
• Mendoza v. Livingston, No. 09-12-00594-CV, 2014 WL 670119, at *3 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Feb. 20, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the inmate's suit for filing a false allegation of poverty where the inmate had a current balance of $6.15, a six-month average balance of $32.21, and total deposits of $690.00 over six months).• McGoldrick v. Velasquez, No. 13-12-00766-CV, 2013 WL 3895315, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi July 25, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing McClain, the court held that an inmate whose six-month average balance was $36.18 and who had total deposits of $453.42 over the preceding six-month period filed a false allegation of poverty and that, therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the inmate's suit).• Vega v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice-Correctional Insts. Div., No. 12-10-00149-CV, 2011 WL 3273256, at *2-3 (Tex. App.—Tyler July 29, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing McClain, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the inmate's suit for filing a false allegation of poverty where $530.00 had been deposited into the inmate's account over the preceding six months and where the inmate had a balance of $118.70).
Based on the foregoing evidence, we find that the trial court could have concluded that appellant's allegations of poverty at the time of filing his petitions were false and, thus, subjected appellant's petitions to dismissal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 14.003(a)(1); McClain, 320 S.W.3d at 398 (concluding that an inmate was not indigent when he had six-month average balance of $184.92); see also Mendoza, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 1855, at **8-10 (concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Mendoza's suit for making false allegations about his ability to pay costs when Mendoza's inmate-account report showed that he had a balance of $6.15 when he filed his complaint; $690 in deposits in the previous six months; a six-month average balance of $32.21; and average deposits in the previous six months of $115); McGoldrick v. Velasquez, No. 13-12-00766-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 9245, at **3-4 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi July 25, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that an inmate was not indigent when he had six-month total deposits of $453.42); Vega v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice-Corr. Inst. Div., No. 12-10-00149-CV, 2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 5888, at **5-7 (Tex. App.—Tyler July 29, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Vega's suit because he made a false allegation of poverty in his declaration of inability to pay costs when Vega's inmate-account report reflected total deposits of $530 over the prior six months); Foster v. Comal County Sheriff, No. 03-08-00539-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 6370, at **3-7 (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 13, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.) (concluding that an inmate was not indigent when he had total deposits of $551.63 in the three months surrounding the filing of his petition); McCullough, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 6821, at **7-8 (concluding that an inmate was not indigent when he had a six-month average balance of $184.92); Estrada v. Angleton Bail
We will affirm the trial court's decision if any theory is meritorious. See McGoldrick v. Velasquez, No. 13-12-00766-CV, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 9245, at *3 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi July 25, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Walker v. Gonzales Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't, 35 S.W.3d 157, 162 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2000, pet. denied)). We review the trial court's dismissal of an in forma pauperis suit under an abuse of discretion standard, and we will reverse the dismissal only if we conclude that the trial court acted without reference to any guiding rules or principles.