### NUM BER 13-08- 0030 3-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
KEN SC OTT , A pp ellan t,
v. RIC HA RD L . C RIT ES, E T A L., A pp ellees .

On ap pe al f rom th e 3 6th D istrict Co urt

of B ee Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez Appel lan t, Ken S cot t, an i nmate proceed ing pro s e a n d i n forma p auper is , fil ed a law sui t ag ain st v ar iou s e mploy ees of the Tex as Dep artment of Cr i mi n a l J u s t i c e - I n s t i t u t ion al Di v is ion ( TDC J) under tit le 42, sec ti on 1983 of the Uni ted S tates C ode. See 42 U .S.C . § 198 3. In three issues, Scott conten ds tha t the trial court erred by: ( 1) “ov erstep ping its role
as tr ier of fact” ; ( 2) di smi ss ing hi s s uitunder ch a p ter 14 of the Tex as Ci v il Pract ic es and Remedi es Cod e; an d (3 ) f a ili ng to hear or r ule on h is moti on for default jud g ment. See2

T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 1 4. 00 1- .0 14 ( Ve r no n 20 02 )

. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND On N ov ember

18, 2006, Scot t, a C herokee Nat iv e Amer ic an, e ntered a search ar ea pr ior to a s chedu led v is it ati on w it h hi s s pouse
. Chr is topher R amirez , a TDC J e m plo y ee in charg e of searc h ing i nmates , demand ed Sc ott empty the cont ents of a s mall , s eal ed medic ine pouc h tha t he w as w ear ing around hi s n eck

. S co tt ex pla ine d tha t ope nin g the pou ch w ould destroy both the po uch a nd its con ten ts. Ra m ir e z called his sup erv isor, Ci ri ldo Puent es, a c apt a in o f c o rrec ti ons, to ass is t w it h the matte r. Pu entes i nformed Rami re zthathe ( Puente s) w as unfamili ar w it h T DC J poli ci es reg ardin g Nati v e Amer ic an re li g iou s a rt ic les , and ins tr uct ed Rami re z to al low Sc ott to proceed to v is it ati on. Rami re z compl ied

. Dur ing v is it ati on, S cot t l eft the v is it ati on area to use the rest ro om. U pon hi s retur n, Scot t w as ag ain sto pped by R amirez , and Puent es w as cal led

. Puente s, acc ompani ed by Joan n Garcia, a sergeant of corrections, app roach ed Sco tt an d stat ed that th e T DCJ policy
w as that a medi ci ne pouc h s houl d onl y be w or n i n hous ing areas or N a ti ve Ameri can cer emoni e s , a n d mu s t b e “ d u mp e d ” u p o n d e ma n d o f a n o ffi c e r
. S c o t t w a s a g a i n as ked to empt y the cont ents of the p ouch; he refused. Ri chard C ri tes , as si sta nt w arden, entered the s ear ch ar ea and order ed Sc ott to op en th e pouc h; S cot t c ompli ed. Aft er e x ha us ti ng h i s ad mi ni s trat i v e r em ed i es , Sc ot t, p roc ee di ng p ro s e an d i n for ma pauper is , fil ed s uitunder ti tl e 42, sec ti on 1983 of the U nit ed St ates C ode ag ain st Cr it e, Pue nte s, Garcia, a n d R am irez , in their individual capa cities, for alleged v iolation s of his
cons ti tuti onal r ig ht t o freel y pract ic e reli g ion

. See 42 U.S.C. § 1 983

. Th e de fend ant s did not fil e an answ er
. The tr ial co urt i ss ued an order r eq uest ing an a mic us cur iae from the attor ney g eneral re g ardin g w hether Scott had compli ed w it h the req uirements of ch apterScot t doe s not cont end t hat T D C J pol i ci es con cer ni ng N ati ve A m eri cans a r e un const i t ut i onal or 1 v i ol at e t he R el i gi ous Land U se an d I ncar cer at ed Per sons Act ( R LU I PA )

. I nst ead, he cont ends t hat t her e was an “ i nten t i on al a nd m al i gnant ” v i ol at i on o fhi s r i ght s beca use T D C J off i ci al s “ bel i ev e [ t ] hat t hey can do what ev er t hey choo se” and “ di sr egar d” t he r i ght s of a N at i v e Am er i can. 3 14. In respon se, th e att o rn e y g e n e ral filed an am icus curiae suggesting that, b ecau se the re is no proba bility

Scott would prevail, his suit should b e dism issed as f riv olou s. In respon se, Sc ott filed a “ Mo ti on to Str ik e.” The cour t deni ed the “ Mo ti on to Str ik e” af ter not ing tha t the bod y of the mo tion to strike refe rred to a “Motion to Recuse Defense Cou nsel .” The cour

t found t hat “ any

M oti on to R ecus e D efense C ounse l w oul d be moot
a s t h e re is n o d e fe n s e co u n s e l o f re c o rd in t h is ca s e , o n l yt h e A m ic u s Cu ri a e A d vis o ry. [Sco tt]’s Motion to Strike the Am icus Curiae Adv isory f iled by the Attorn ey Gen eral . . . is Den ied .” I n i ts order

deny ing Sc ott’ s mot ion to str ik e, t he c our t dec li ned t o i ss ue a deci si on re g ardin g w hether

Sc ott’ s law sui t shoul d be dis mis sed pursuantto chapt er 14; ins tead, the
cour t req uest ed th at S cot t s ubmita br ief demo n st ra ti n g thathi s c ause of acti on w as meri tor iou s. On Febr uar y 21, 2008, Scot t submit ted a br ief as ser ti ng thatthe defendants had v iol ated his co nst it uti onal r ig hts , as w ell as his r ig hts under the Rel ig iou s L and U se and Inca rcerated Person s Act (RLUIPA). 1 On Mar ch 24 , 2 0 0 8 , S c o t t f ile d a m o ti o n fo r de fa u ltju d gm e n t. W it h o u t h o ld in g a hea ring or ruling on Sco tt’s mo tion for de f a u lt j udgm ent , the trial court dismissed Scott’s law sui t as fri v olo us under ch apter 14. This appeal ens ued. II. T RI A L C OUR T D I D N OT “O VERST EP I TS R OLE A S T RI ER OF F A CT ” In hi s first is sue, Scot t ess enti all y cont ends that the tr ial cour t became an adv ocat e for th e defendants by

su a s ponte dis mis si ng hi s l aw su it u n d e r chapt er 14. Sec ti on 14.003( a) prov ide s t hat a “ cour t may di smi ss a c la im , eithe r before o r after ser v ic e of proce ss, if

the cou rt fin ds tha t . . . th e claim is frivolous or maliciou s . . . .” T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 14. 003 (a)(2). “ Beca use a trial court is aut horized to dism iss a claim4

bef ore se rv ic e of proces s, i. e., before the defendant has file d an answ er ,” w e c oncl ude t hat the c our t had the author it y to dis mis s Scot t’ s act ion ev en thoug h the d efendants faile d to file an ans w er
. McCollumv. Mt. Ararat Bap tist Church , 9 8 0 S

. W

. 2 d 5 3 5 , 5 3 7 (T e x. App .–Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 199 8, no pet. ) ( em pha sis in orig inal) (noting that a trial court’s author it y to dis mis s a cl aim w her e the defendant fails to file an ans w er i s c onsi ste nt w it h chapt er 14’ s p ur pose of controll ing fri v olo us law sui ts)

. Scot t’ s first is sue is ov er ru led

. II. T RI A L C OUR T D I D N OT E RR I N D I S MI S S I NG S UI T U NDE R C HA P TE R 14 In his seco nd issue , S c o t t conte nds th at th e cou rt erred by dism issing his law suit under ch apter 14 o f the c iv il pract ic e and re medies co de. A . A pp licab le L aw an d St and ard o f Rev iew Cha pter 14 o f the c iv il pract ic e and re medie s code g ov er ns sui ts broug ht by an inm ate (ex cept suits b rought und er t he fam ily co de) in w hich the in ma te f iles an af f idavit
or uns w or n dec larati on of i nabi li ty to pay co sts

. S ee T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 14. 001; Thom as v. Kni ght , 52 S.W .3d 2 92, 2 94 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2001, pet. den ie d ). The suit ma y be dism issed un der cha pte r 14 if the cou rt fin ds the law suit is friv olo us or mali ci ous. T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 14.002. Generall y , w e rev iew the d is mis sal of a l aw sui t broug ht by an inmat e w ho has fil ed an aff ida v itor a de cl ar ati on of inabi li ty

to pay co sts under

an a b u se o f dis creti on s tandard. Jac ks on v . T ex. D ep’ t of Crim inal Justice -Inst. Div. , 28 S.W .3d 8 11, 8 13 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2000, pet. d e n ie d ). Ho wever, whe n th e tr ia l co u rt d ism iss e s the su itw it h o u t a n evid e n ti a ry he a rin g,
w e may aff ir m thatdec is ion onl y i f the s uithas no arg uabl e basi s in law

. Long v . T anner , 1 7 0 S. W .3 d 75 2 , 75 4 (T e x. Ap p .– W a co 20 0 5 , p e t. de n ie d ) (ci ti n g Ret z laf f v . T ex. D ep’ t of Crim inal Justice , 94 S.W .3d 650 , 653 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 200 2, pe t. de nied ); Sm ith v. Tex. Dep’

t o f C rim inal Justice -Inst. Div. , 3 3 S

. W

. 3 d 3 3 8 , 3 4 0 (T e x.5

App.–Tex ar kana 2000, pet. denied) ). W e appl y a de nov o s tandard of r ev iew to thi s i ss ue. Long , 170 S.W .3d a t 754

. In c onduc ti ng our

de n ov o re v iew , w e tak e the all eg ati ons of Scott ’s peti ti on as tr ue, and rev iew

the types of

relief and cause s of action set out the rein to de term ine w het her,
as a matt er

of law , t he pet it ion st ated a c ause of acti on th at w oul d aut hor iz e reli ef. See Scott v . G all agher , 209 S.W .3d 2 62, 2 66 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1st Di st. ] 200 6, no pet. ); see also Harrison v. Tex. Dep ’ t of Crim inal Justice , Inst. Div. , 1 6 4 S

. W

. 3 d 8 7 1 , 8 7 5 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2005, no p et.)

. A c lai m has no arg uabl e bas is in l a w if it i s a n ind is putabl y

mer it les s l eg al theor

y . Scott , 209 S.W .3d a t 266

. B. A nal ysis Scot t, seek ing monetary damag es, as ser

ts a c ause of acti on ag ain st each of the four afor ementi oned ap pel lee s in thei r ind iv idu al capac it ies under ti tl e 42, sec ti on 1983 of the U nit ed St ates C ode, w hic h prov ide s a r emedy w hen persons ac ti ng under col or of sta te law depr iv e anot her

of ri g hts , pr iv il eg es, or i mmuniti es protec ted b y the Uni ted S tates Con sti tuti on or law s. Gor don v . Sc ott , 6 S.W .3d 365, 369 ( Tex . Ap p.–Bea umont 19 99, p et. d e n ie d ) (cit in g Thom as v. Col li ns , 960 S.W .2d 1 06, 1 09 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 1997, w ri t den ied ))

. Scot t’ s c omplai nts are pr imar il y bas ed on his r ig hts under R LUI PA. See 42 U .S.C . §§ 2000c c–200 0cc -5

. RLU IPA cl aims us e the su bst anti al burden t estto deter mine w hether a v iol ati on of a pl ain ti ff ’s r eli g iou s f re e ex er ci se ri g hts has oc cur re d. See 42 U.S. C. §§ 20 00cc-1 (a); 2000c c- 2( b) ; Baran ow

ski v. Hart , 486 F. 3d 112, 124 (5 th Ci r. 2007)

. To pr ev ail un d er RLUIPA, an inmat e bea rs the initial burd en of dem onst rating tha t the cha ll e n ge d p o licy
s u b s t a n t i a l l y b u r d e n s h i s e x e r c i s e o f r e l i g ion

. Id. A “ subs tanti al burden” on a r eli g iou s
ex er ci se ex is ts w her e a g ov er nment ac ti on or r eg ula ti on “ tr uly

pr ess ur es the a dher ent t o6

si g nific antl y

modi fy his religio u s behav ior and si g nific antl y

v iol ate h is r eli g iou s b eli efs.” Baran ow ski , 4 8 6 F.3 d a t 1 2 4

. I f t h e i n m a te su cc e e d s in m a kin g th is p rim a fa cie sh o wing, the burde n shif

ts to the d ef end ant s t o dem onst rate tha t the challen ged polices are the lea st
re str ic ti v e means of further ing a c ompell ing st ate i nterest

. Id. T he a ttorn ey general’s am icus curiae provides relevant po rtions of Th e T DCJ Chap laincy Policy Manu al (“ t he m anu al”). The man ual de f ines a “me dicine b ag” as a “sm all ( max imum 2 [i nch] sq uar e) [bag ] .

. . made of pli ant a nimal sk in sew n or l aced tog ether to create a poc ket

. It is co nnect ed to a lea ther or fabri c t hong thati s w or n around the n eck .” I t i s u ndi sput ed th at S cot t’ s “ medic ine po u ch ” m eets the TDC J d efini ti on of “medi ci ne bag .” The manua l sta tes , “ In pr is on, w ear ing the medic ine bag i s l imi ted t o the off ender ’s ce ll or

i mmediate b u n k a re a i n a d or m set ti ng and to an d from reli g iou s serv ic e s
. ” I t is un dispu ted thaton the occasion in q uest ion, Sco tt w as w earing his medic ine bag to the v is it ati on area, a n area th at is not h is “ immedi ate b unk ar ea.” Sc ott does not c ontend that he w as en ro ute to the v is it ati on ar ea for re li g iou s ser v ic es; i nst ead, he admi ts that he w as meeti ng hi s s pouse for s chedu led v is it ati on. Addi ti onal ly , the manual state s, “ The bag and it s conte nts m ay be v is ual ly

i nspec ted at an y ti me for v ali d s ecur it y

r eason s.” Sc ott cont ends that the TDCJ offici als l ack ed a
v alid se cu rit y reason t o s ear ch his medi ci ne bag bec ause itw as “s eal ed.” The manua l does not d is ti ng uis h betw een seal ed and unsea led medic ine bag s. In an affidav itatt ached to t he at tor ney

g eneral’ s a mic us cur iae , R ey nal do C ast ro , R eg ion al Di rector of the Cor re cti o nal Ins ti tuti on D iv is ion of TDC J, sta tes , “ The sec ur it y r is k p osed by

a medi ci ne bag ste ms from the fact that obj ect s, w hic h pose a ri sk to sec ur it y , may be hid den in it.” Scot t doe s n ot c hal len g e thi s p o lic y w it h r eg ards to un seal ed medi ci ne bag s, and he prese nts no argumen t add ressing how the TDCJ policy subst ant ially burde ns his exercise7

of rel ig ion

. See id. In th e prese nt case, S cott doe s n ot cont end t hat e ither the p olicy o r TDCJ of

f icials subst ant ia ll y b u rd ene d his relig ion; inst ead , he argues th at th e initial burd en is on T DCJ off ic ial s b ecaus e the y

hav e notp ro ven t h a t t hey us ed th e“ lea st re str ic ti v e means ” w hen demandi ng thatSc ott open hi s medi ci ne pouc h. Beca use Scot t has faile d to de monstrate,
or even argue, tha t the TDCJ policy regarding medicine bags substa ntially burd ene d his
ex er ci se of re li g ion , w e concl ude that his clai m has no arg uabl e bas is i n l aw
. See i d. We
ov er ru le Scot t’ s s econd i ss ue. For this reaso n, w e need not c onsi der Sc ott’ s t hird i ss ue. See Gill v. Russo , 39 S.W .3d 717, 719 (Tex

. App.–H oust on [1s t Di st. ] 200 1, pe t. deni ed) (mot ion for d efault jud g ment c onsi der ed moot w her e tr ial co urt di smi ss ed th e s uit ). IV. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led al l of Scott ’s i ss ues, w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.
RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice
Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed on t his 26th day

of Aug ust , 200 9.