Pohl refers to three previous suits he filed and complains that in each of those suits the appellate court affirmed the dismissal. See Pohl v. Simmons, No. 13-09-00406-CV, 2009 WL 3922018 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi Nov. 19, 2009, no pet.); Pohl v. Polunsky Unit, No. 09-08-00367-CV, 2009 WL 3199766 (Tex. App.-Beaumont Oct. 8, 2009, no pet.); Pohl v. Chavers, No. 09-07-00285-CV, 2007 WL 3393430 (Tex. App.-Beaumont Nov. 15, 2007, no pet.). Pohl suggests that the requirements placed on confined litigators encourages abuse by prison officials.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing this lawsuit without prejudice. The dismissals in other cases cited by Pohl were likewise affirmed on appeal. See Pohl v. Simmons, No. 13-09-00406-CV, 2009 WL 3922018 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi Nov. 19, 2009, no pet. h.) (mem. op.); Pohl v. Polunsky Unit, No. 09-08-00367-CV, 2009 WL 3199766 (Tex. App.-Beaumont Oct. 8, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.); Pohl v. Chavers, No. 09-07-285 CV, 2007 WL 3393430 (Tex. App.-Beaumont Nov. 15, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.). Although the trial court dismissed several of Pohl's lawsuits, Pohl has not shown that the trial court erred.