Opinion
NO. 14-11-00102-CV
03-08-2012
CHARLES ANTHONY ALLEN, Appellant v. GEORGE STEPHENSON, KIRT STIEFER, AUSTIN ETHEREDGE, CASEY PARROTT, ANTHONY MYLES, COREA MOSLEY, JOSEPH WEAVER, JANE DOE, CHERYL LARSON, AND LISA MANTLE, Appellees
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed March 8, 2012.
On Appeal from the 12th District Court
Grimes County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 31730
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Charles Anthony Allen appeals the dismissal of his suit under Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 14.001-.014. We affirm.
Allen, an inmate confined at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), filed suit pro se and in forma pauperis, complaining his due process rights were violated during disciplinary hearings that resulted in him receiving two disciplinary cases for threatening an officer and another inmate. Allen requested injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages. Appellees answered Allen's petition and then moved to dismiss for failure to comply with Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The trial court dismissed Allen's suit without prejudice and Allen brought this appeal.
Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code governs inmate litigation. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 14.001—.014. We review a trial court's Chapter 14 dismissal of an inmate's claims under an abuse of discretion standard. Retzlaff v. Tex. Dep't of Crim. Justice, 94 S.W.3d 650, 654 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied). A trial court has broad discretion to dismiss an inmate's suit if it finds that the claim asserted is frivolous or malicious. Martinez v. Thaler, 931 S.W.2d 45, 46 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, writ denied). A trial court abuses this broad discretion if it acts arbitrarily, capriciously, or without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Id.
Chapter 14 imposes several procedural requirements before an inmate may bring a lawsuit without paying filing fees. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 14.002(a), 14.004, 14.005. A failure to fulfill these procedural requirements will result in dismissal of the inmate's suit. See Lilly v. Northrep, 100 S.W.3d 335, 336 (Tex. App.—San Antonio, 2002 pet. denied).
One such procedural requirement is that the inmate must properly exhaust his administrative remedies by completing the internal TDCJ grievance process before filing a lawsuit. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 14.005; Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 304 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.). The trial court must dismiss the suit if the inmate's claim is subject to the grievance system and "the inmate fails to file the claim before the 31st day after the date the inmate receives the written decision from the grievance system." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code § 14.005(b). An inmate is required to exhaust his remedies through the grievance process before seeking judicial review. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 14.005(a); Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 501.008(d) (providing that an inmate may not file a claim in state court until the inmate has received a written decision issued by the highest authority provided for in the grievance system, or the 180th day after the grievance is filed if no decision is received). A claim has no arguable basis in law if the inmate has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Retzlaff, 94 S.W.3d at 653.
Section 14.005 provides that an inmate who files suit on a claim subject to the grievance system must file an affidavit or unsworn declaration stating the date that the grievance was filed and the date the written decision was received by the inmate. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code § 14.005(a). In addition, the inmate must provide a copy of the written grievance decision. Id. These requirements are necessary to establish that the inmate has exhausted his administrative remedies and filed his claim within the requisite time period. See Garrett v. Borden, 283 S.W.3d 852, 853 (Tex. 2009). If an inmate does not strictly comply with subsection 14.005(a), a trial court does not abuse its discretion in dismissing the claim. See Hamilton v. Williams, 298 S.W.3d 334, 340 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, pet. denied) (holding appellate court may affirm dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies).
In this case, the record reflects Allen filed a Step 1 grievance on October 27, 2009, and a decision is dated November 16, 2009. Allen filed a Step 2 grievance on December 1, 2009. The decision is dated December 29, 2009. The record does not contain an affidavit filed by Allen stating the date he received the decision on his grievance. Allen filed suit on May 12, 2010. Because the record does not reflect suit was filed before the 31st day after the date Allen received the written decision from the grievance system, it will not support a finding that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing Allen's suit. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 14.005(b).
Accordingly, Allen's issues are overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Frost, Brown, and Christopher.