Samuels v. Strain

38 Citing cases

  1. Morris v. Flores

    NUMBER 13-11-00675-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 26, 2012)   Cited 4 times

    A trial court may dismiss an inmate's claim if it is substantially similar to a previous claim arising from the same operative facts. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 14.003(b)(4); Samuels v. Strain, 11 S.W.3d 404, 406 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.); see also Harrison v. Kiper, No. 07-07-0322-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 7225, at *4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Sept. 25, 2008, pet. denied) (mem. op.). To inform the court of any substantial similarity, the inmate is required to adequately describe every previously filed pro se claim.

  2. Altschul v. State

    No. 14-09-00325-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 15, 2010)   Cited 1 times

    When an inmate fails to comply with the affidavit requirements of section 14.004, the trial court may assume that the current suit is substantially similar to one previously filed by an inmate and thus is frivolous. See Samuels v. Strain, 11 S.W.3d 404, 407 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st] 2000, no pet.); Bell v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice, 962 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th] 1998, pet. denied). Section 14.004 requires an inmate to file an affidavit of previous filings that:

  3. Garrett v. Trapp

    No. 02-08-186-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 4, 2008)   Cited 4 times

    When an inmate fails to provide the information required by section 14.004(a)(2), the trial court is entitled to assume that the current suit is substantially similar to a previous claim. Samuels v. Strain, 11 S.W.3d 404, 406-07 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of his conduct or to circumstances surrounding his conduct when he is aware of the nature of his conduct or that the circumstances exist.

  4. Harrison v. Kiper

    No. 07-07-0322-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 25, 2008)   Cited 4 times

    When an inmate fails to provide the information required by section 14.004(a)(2), the trial court is entitled to assume the current suit is substantially similar to a previous claim. Samuels v. Strain, 11 S.W.3d 404, 406 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.); Bell v. Texas Dep't of Crim. Justice-Institutional Div., 962 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied). We review a trial court's dismissal of a lawsuit brought by an inmate who has filed an affidavit or declaration of inability to pay costs for abuse of discretion.

  5. Martin v. State

    No. 01-03-01224-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 31, 2005)   Cited 2 times
    Stating in chapter 14 case that if order of dismissal does not state whether the case was dismissed with or without prejudice, it is presumed the case was dismissed without prejudice

    Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex. 1990); Terry v. Terry, 920 S.W.2d 423, 426 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ). In making its determination under section 14.003, the court may also take into consideration the requirements imposed by section 14.004. Samuels v. Strain, 11 S.W.3d 404, 407 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.). Under section 14.004, an inmate who files an affidavit or unsworn declaration of inability to pay, is required to file a separate affidavit or declaration:

  6. WILLIAMS v. TEXAS DEPT OF CRIM JUST

    No. 01-03-01332-CV (Tex. App. Jan. 6, 2005)

    Id. § 14.003(b) (Vernon 2002). In making its determination under section 14.003, the court may also take into consideration the requirements imposed by section 14.004. Samuels v. Strain, 11 S.W.3d 404, 407 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.).In this case the trial court did not give a reason for finding appellant's lawsuit to be frivolous, and appellant made no request for findings of fact or conclusions of law.

  7. White v. State

    37 S.W.3d 562 (Tex. App. 2001)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that White's description of the operative facts was, in effect, a designation of legal theories and that the trial court could not determine if the previous lawsuits were similar to the current one without the operative facts

    Stating the "operative facts" from previous suits filed by the inmate is a requirement of section 14.004 and is one of the considerations a trial court employs in determining whether a suit is frivolous or malicious. If an inmate's suit fails to comply with the procedural requirements of section 14.004, including the "operative facts" provision, the suit may be dismissed. See Samuels v. Strain, 11 S.W.3d 404, 407 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (Appellate court affirmed dismissal of suit on grounds that prison inmate failed to comply with requirements of section 14.004.). There is no merit to White's contention that the trial court cannot dismiss a suit pursuant to the inmate's failure to comply with the procedural requirements of section 14.004.

  8. Williams v. Brown

    33 S.W.3d 410 (Tex. App. 2000)   Cited 57 times
    Holding that trial court did not err in dismissing inmate's lawsuit as frivolous for failure to comply with Section 14.004

    In reviewing the trial court's decision to dismiss a case subject to chapter 14, an appellate court applies an abuse-of-discretion standard of review. Hickson v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397, 398 (Tex.App.-Waco 1996, no writ); see Clark v. J.W. Estelle Unit, 23 S.W.3d 420, 421 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. filed) (applying abuse-of-discretion standard to dismissal under Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 14.004); Samuels v. Strain, 11 S.W.3d 404, 406 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (applying abuse-of-discretion standard to dismissal on grounds of frivolousness under section 14.003(a)). Similarly, a trial court's decision on whether to hold a hearing is discretionary. Thomas v. Wichita Gen. Hosp., 952 S.W.2d 936, 938 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1997, pet. denied).

  9. Wallace v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division

    36 S.W.3d 607 (Tex. App. 2000)   Cited 31 times
    Determining that inmate's claim in lawsuit that he was injured by faulty machinery was based on same operative facts as grievance alleging negligent health care for the injury

    In reviewing the trial court's decision to dismiss a case subject to chapter 14, an appellate court applies an abuse-of-discretion standard of review. Hickson v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397, 398 (Tex.App.-Waco 1996, no writ); see Clark v. J.W. Estelle Unit, 23 S.W.3d 420, 421 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. filed) (applying abuse-of-discretion standard to dismissal for not complying with requirements of Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 14.004); Samuels v. Strain, 11 S.W.3d 404, 406 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (applying abuse-of-discretion standard to dismissal on grounds of frivolousness under chapter 14). A court abuses its discretion if it acts without reference to guiding rules or principles.

  10. Jackson v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice — Institutional Division

    28 S.W.3d 811 (Tex. App. 2000)   Cited 123 times
    Reviewing several cases dismissing inmate litigation for failure to comply fully with the affidavit requirement.

    Tex. Civ. Prac. Rem. Code Ann. § 14.004 (Vernon Supp. 2000). Several courts of appeals have reviewed the issue of an inmate's failure to comply fully with section 14.004. Samuels v. Strain, 11 S.W.3d 404, 406 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet. h.); Bell v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice — Institutional Div., 962 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied); Thomas v. Wichita General Hosp., 952 S.W.2d 936, 939 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1997, pet. denied); Hickson, 926 S.W.2d at 399. The Waco Court of Appeals has held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing as frivolous a chapter 14 suit where no such section 14.004 affidavit was filed.