Al i seda i s a M em ber , and R i ssi e O wens i s t he Chai r , of t he T exas Boar d of

Par dons and Par ol es. 1 

### NUM BER 13-08- 0041 7-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 C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G

LA WR ENC E ED WA RD T HOMPSON, A pp ellan t,

v . JOSE A LISE DA

A ND R ISSIE O WEN S, A pp ellees
.

On ap pe al f rom th e 1 56t h Dist rict C ou rt o f B ee Co un ty , T exas .



## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan t, Law re nce Edw ar d Thompson, i s c ur re ntl y i ncar cerated at the D ar ri ng ton Uni t of the Tex as Dep artment of C ri minal Ju sti ce (“ TDC J” ). Ac ti ng pro s e, he appeal s fr om the trial court’s May

19, 20 08 d ismissal orde r in favor of app ellees, Jose Alised a an d Rissie Ow ens. By

three issues, T hom pson cont end s tha t the trial court abu sed its discretio n in 1 dis mis si ng hi s c lai ms for: (1 ) faili ng to file an aff ida v it desc ri bin g pr ev iou s l aw sui ts he hadO n Jun e 30 , 200 8, T hom pson f i l ed an a ffi da vi t of i nabi l i t y t o pa y cost s, t her eby t r i gger i ng t he 2 p ro v i s i o n s o f c h a p te r 1 4 o f th e c i v i l p ra c ti c e a n d re m e d i e s c o d e
. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 1 4 .0 0 1
- .0 1 4 ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 2 ) . T h e r e c o r d , h o w e v e r , d o e s n o t in d ic a te th a t T h o m p s o n f ile d a n a f f id a v it chr oni cl i ng p r ev i ous l awsui t s he has f i l ed i n acco r dance wi t h sect i on 14. 004 oft he ci v i l pr act i ce an d r em edi es c o d e
. See i d. § 1 4 .0 0 4

. T h o m p s o n ’ s fa i l u re to fi l e s u c h a n a f f id a v it w o u l d , i n a n d o f i ts e l f, b e s u ff i c i e n t t o war r ant a di sm i ssal of hi s cl ai m s wi t hout pr ej udi ce. See Bell v. Tex. D ep’ t

. of C r im inal Justi ce- I nst

. D i v. , 962 S. W

. 2d 1 56, 158 ( T ex. App. –H oust on [ 14t h D i st

. ] 199 8, pet

. den i ed) ( hol di ng t hat “ when an i nm at e do es no t c o m p ly w ith th e a f f id a v it r e q u ir e m e n ts o fs e c tio n 1 4 .0 0 4 , t h e t r i a l c o u r t is e n tit le d to a s s u m e th e s u it is s u b s ta n ti a l l y s i m i l a r to o n e p re v i o u s l y fi l e d b y th e i n m a te , a n d th e re fo re , frivo l o u s ”)

.

T he t r i al cour t al so or der ed t he At t or ney G ener al t o f i l e an answer on b ehal fof app el l ees wi t hi n 12 0 3 da y s of i t s orde r and t o a dvi s e t he t ri al co urt as t o w he t he r T ho m ps on ha d c o m p l i e d w i t h a l l t he stat utory re q u i re m e n ts o f c h a p te r 1 4 o f th e c i v i l p ra c ti c e a n d re m e d i e s c o d e
. See gener al l y T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § § 1 4 .0 0 1 -.0 1 4

. 2 f iled; (2) f ailing to p rov ide any griev ance reco rds f rom the Board of Pardo ns an d Paro les;
an d ( 3) l ac ko f s ub

j ec t ma tt er

j ur i s di c ti on
. W e affi r m. I. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND Tho mp s on fi l ed h i s p r o s e or i g i na l p et i ti on o n Oc to be r 2 6, 2 00 7, a s s er

ti ng c l ai ms under se cti ons 1981, 1983, 1985, and 198 6 of ti tl e 42 of the U nit ed St a tes C ode. Sp e cif ica lly, T h o m p so n al le ged th e fo llo wing: Pl ain ti ff as ser ts cl aims pursu ant to 42 U. S.C . §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 198 6 for v iol ati on of Pl ainti f f’s r ig hts by

co nspi ri ng to, and ar bit ra ri ly and c a p ri c io u s ly d e n yin g P la in t if f p a ro le t h ro u gh t h e re t ro a c t ive u s e o f la w, policies, guide li n e s , and proced ures tha t w ere no t in ef fect w hen Plaintif

f ’s com mitm ent of

fense w as com mitt ed th at m akes it ha rder for Plaint if f to m ake parole ; us e of r aci al and r eli g iou s d is cr imi nati on to denyP la int iff parol e; re tal iat ion for P lai nti ff ’s l eg al and reli g iou s a cti v it ies ; req uir ing Pl a int iff to par ti ci pate in TDC J- spons or ed prog ra ms t hat v iol ate P lai nti ff ’s chosen re li g iou s b eli efs; a failu re to super v is e and tr ain ; and a v iol ati on of Tex as law in re v iew ing Pl ain ti ff

for p ar ole

. Among other thi ng s, Thompson did not file: (1 ) an affidav itof ina bil it y to pay ; ( 2) a pr int out of the l astthree month s o f his TDC J t ru st acc ount; ( 3) an a ff ida v itdoc um e n ting the prev i ou s la w s ui ts he ha d fi l ed ; or (4 ) a w r i tt en dec i s i on f r om a g r i ev an c e s y s te m. See T EX
. 2 C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 1 4.0 04-.0 05 (Ve rnon 200 2). Accordingly , the trial court
assesse d f iling fees a gainst Th om pson and ordered a copy of Th om ps o n ’s i n m ate trust
acc ount. Thompson’ s i nmate t ru st acc ount ind ic ated that as of Nov ember 9, 2007, he had 33

a bal ance of $.01 and thathe w as decl ar ed i ndi g ent o n Oc tober 30, 2007. On F ebr uar

y 15, 2008, the A tt o rn e y Gene ra l’ s O ff ic e fil ed an “ Am ic us Cur iae Adv is or y ” on beha lf of appel lee s, cont endi ng thatThompson’ s c lai ms s houl d be dis mis sed beca use: ( 1) he ha d f ailed to f ile an af f idavit of previ ous f ilings; (2) he did not e x hau st all of his admi nis tr ati v e r emedie s; and ( 3) hi s c lai ms s houl d hav e been br oug ht pu rs uant to
a w ri t of habeas co rp us, and, therefore, the t ri al cour t l ack ed s ubj ectmatte r jur is dic ti on. On M ay 19, 2008, the tr ial co urt di smi ss ed Thompson ’s cl aims

. In pa rt ic ula r, the trial court not ed th e followi ng in its orde r:

Pl ain ti ff co mplai ns of the ac ti on of the Tex as Board of Pardon[s ] and Parole [s] i n es tabl is hin g hi s rele ase date from pr is on. Pl ain ti ff has not filed a s epar ate a ff ida v itor u n swor n dec larati on iden tif y ing each pro se lawsuit, b y l is t in g the ope ration [sic] fa cts, the case name, c ause number , and courtf il ed, part ies and re sul ts of the s uit , i ncl udi ng w het her the suit w as dism issed pursuan t to C hap ter 14 of the Te x as Practice and R emedie s C ode. Pl ain ti ff has not compl ied w it h the r eq uirements of Tex as Gov er nment Cod e Annotated Sec ti on 501.008 byf ail ing to pr ov ide any g ri ev ance re cords from the Board of Pardons and Pa ro le[ s]. The Pl ain ti ff

i s req uest ing hi s p ar ole r e voc a ti on i n 2005 be re cons ide re d by

the Cou rt

. This co urt has no subj ectm atter jur is dic ti on ov er such issue s. Plaint if f may in fa ct be at tem pting to invoke Habea s Corpus relief in his peti ti on. Ar

ti cl e 11. 07 C o d e of

C ri minal Procedu re co ntrols habeas cor pus re li ef in Tex as [c] ri minal [c] ases
. . . . This co urt l ack s j ur is dic ti on of his habeas r eq uest

. This appeal ens ued. II. A N AL Y S IS In his third issue , Th om pson alleges that th e trial court ab used its discret ion in dis mis si ng hi s c lai ms for lac k of s ubj ect matter j ur is dic ti on. Spec ific all y , Thompso n arg ues that the t ri al cour

t w as inc or re ct in conc lud ing thatthe subs tanc e of his peti ti on per

tai nedT o t he e xt ent t hat T hom pson chal l enges t he const i t ut i onal i t y of t he Boar d of Par dons and Par ol es 4 p r o c e d u r e s g o v e r n in g p a r o le , w e n o te th a t “ T e x a s la w d o e s n o t c r e a te a lib e r ty in te r e s t in p a r o le th a t is pro t ec t ed by du e p roc es s
. ” M art in v. St at e Bd. of C r im inal Justi ce , 60 S. W

. 3d 2 26, 230 ( T ex. App. –C or pus C hr i st i 200 6, no pet

. ) ( ci t i ng A llis o n v . K y le , 66 F

. 3d 71 , 74 (5t h C i r. 19 95 )) ; s e e J o h n s o n v . D a v is , 178 S. W

. 3d 230, 239 ( T ex. App. –H oust on [ 14t h Di st

. ] 200 5, pet

. den i ed)

. T her ef or e, because he has no l i ber t y i nt er est in o b ta in in g p a r o le , a n in m a te c a n n o t a tt a c k th e c o n s tit u tio n a lity o fp r o c e d u r a l d e v ic e s a t t e n d a n t t o p a r o le d e c i s i o n s
. S e e M a rtin , 60 S. W

. 3d a t 230 ( ci t i ng O re lla n a v . K y le , 65 F

. 3d 29 , 32 (5t h C i r. 19 95 ))

. M ore ove r, “[ a] d i st r i ct cour t has no co nst i t ut i onal or st at ut or y j ur i sdi ct i on t o exe r ci se sup er v i sor y cont r ol ov er pr i son offi c i al s
. ” M a rtin , 60 S. W

. 3d at 229 ( ci t i ng M art inez v. Thal er , 9 3 1 S .W .2 d 4 5 , 4 6 (T e x . A p p .– H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t

. ] 19 93 , w ri t de ni ed ))

. 4 only to his 2005 parole revocation . Instea d, T hom pson app ears to assert th at th e T DCJ cont inuo usly discrimina ted against him at v arious pa role hea rings. 4 1. S ta nd ard o f Rev iew Subj ectmatte r jur is dic ti on is an essent ial part of the author it y of a cour t t o dec ide
a cas e, and iti s n ev er

to be presumed and c annot be w aiv ed. Tex. Ass’ n of Bu s. v. Tex. Ai r Con tr ol Bd. , 852 S.W .2d 4 40, 4 4 3 -4 4 ( Tex . 199 3)

. The r ev iew ing co urt det er mines wh e t h e r s u bje c tm a t t e r j u ri s d ic t io n e xis t s a s a qu e s t io n o f la w, su bje c tt o d e n o vo re vie w. Mayhe w v. Tow

n of Su nnyva le , 964 S.W .2d 922 , 928 (Tex. 1998 ). “B ecaus e w e ev alu ate pr o s e pl eadi ng s l ibe ra ll y i n order to deter mine the mer it s o f the c omplai nt, w e re v iew the same c lai ms and g ro unds for j ur is dic ti on as bel ow .” M artin v. Stat e Bd. of Crim inal Justice , 60 S.W .3d 2 26, 2 28 ( Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, no p e t. ) (ci ti n g Hai

nes v. Ker

ner , 404 U. S. 5 1 9 , 5 2 0 (19 72) ; Jo h n s o n v. Mc A da ms , 781 S.W .2d 451 , 452 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [1st Dist.] 19 90, no w rit))

. 2. Disc ussi on In hi s or ig ina l peti ti on, Thompson tak es is sue w it h the manner in w hic h numerous parole hear ing s w er e c onduc ted. Thompson all eg es, w it hout pr ov idi ng su ffici ent e v ide nce, that the TD CJ co nti nuous ly di sc ri minat ed ag ain st him in parole hear ing s c onduc ted o n Janua ry 1, 1991, Ma y

13, 1993, June 6, 19 94, M ay 25 , 1 9 9 8 , Aug ust2000, Aug ust2,T h o m p s o n n o te d in h is o r ig in a l p e tit io n th a t h e w a s g r a n te d p a r o le o n J u n e 1 2 , 2 0 0 2 , b u t t h a t h is 5 par ol e was r ev oked on Ju ne 2 3, 200 5. 5 2006, and Au g ust2, 2007, becau se he i s a M usl im Afric an- Amer ic an. 5 The Un it ed St ates Supreme C our t has hel d tha t an inmat e in sta te cus tody ca nnot
use a section 198 3 actio n to cha llenge “the f act or du ration o f h is co nf inem ent .” W

il ki nson
v. Dot son , 544 U .S. 74, 7 8 ( 2005) . In ste ad, t he i nmate s houl d fil e a p eti ti on for w ri t of habeas co rp us. Id. I n the presen t case, T hompson ess enti all y arg ues that he w as deni ed parole and his co nfinement w as extended becau se the B oar d of P a rd o n s a nd Parole s engaged in various forms o f discriminat ion. As such , Th om pson shou ld have asserte d his cl aims i n a p eti ti on for w ri t of habeas co rp us. See i d. In addit ion , Tex as cour ts hav e hel d tha t a person all eg ing i rreg ula ri ti es occ ur ri ng dur ing parole proceed ing s s houl d r ais e t h o s e i ss ues by w ay of a pos t- conv ic ti on appl ic ati on for w ri t of ha beas cor pus under arti cl e 11.07 of t he code of cr imi nal procedu re
. See B d. of Par dons & Paroles v. Cou rt of Appeal

s f or the Ei ghth Di st. , 9 1 0 S

. W

. 2 d 4 8 1 , 4 8 4 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1995) ; see als o Will iam s v . O wens , N o. 11 -0 6- 00184- CV , 200 7 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 6 34 4, a t * 5 ( Tex

. Ap p. –E as tl an d Au g
. 9, 20 07 , pe t. d en i ed ) ( me m. o p. ) ( pe r c ur i am ) (ci ti n g T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 11.07 (V er non 200 5) ; Bd. of Par dons & Par

ole s , 910 S. W .3d a t 484 ). Ar ti cl e 11. 07 of the code of crim inal pr ocedu re prov ide s t hat t he T exas Court of

Cri min al App eals reta ins the ex clusiv e a u t h o rity to grant relief

in such pr oceed ing s. See T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 11.07, § 3; see a lso Bd. o f Pardo ns & Par ole s , 910 S.W .2d a t 484

. Beca use a w ri t of habeas co rp us is the ex cl usi v e r emedy for a ddr ess ing al leg ed irreg ularities occu rring during parole proceed ings, and be cause Th om pson is essentially chal len g ing the dur ati on of hi s inc ar cerati on, t he tr ial co urt di d nothav e j ur is dic ti on to g ra nt6

Thompson t he r eli ef req uest ed i n hi s o ri g ina l peti tion. Therefor e, t he tr ial co urt di d not abuse i ts dis cr eti on i n di smi ss ing Thompson’ s cl aims for lac k of s ubj ectmatte r jur is dic ti on. Acc or din g ly , w e ov er ru le Thompson’ s t hird i ss ue. Beca use w e hav e c oncl uded t hat t he tr ial co urt l ack e d s u bje ct matter j ur is dic ti on
ov er Thompson’ s c lai ms, w e need not a d d re ss Thompson’ s tw o r emaini ng i ss ues on appeal

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.1; s e e a ls o W il lia ms , 200 7 T ex. Ap p. LEXIS 634 4, at **5-6 ( c on c l ud i ng t ha t th e tr i al c ou rt l ac k ed s ub j ec t ma tt er

j ur i s di c ti on ov er a n i nm at e’ s c l ai ms against th e T exas Board of P ardo ns and P aroles and , the refore, af f irming th e trial court’s dis mis sal of the i nmate’ s c lai ms w it hout addr ess ing the inmat e’s othe r is sues ). IV. C ONCL US I ON W e af f irm the trial court’s order of dismissal.

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 29t h day

of Janua ry , 200 9.