IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-09-00354-CV

SONNY WILSON,

Appellant

v.

TDCJ-ID,

Appellee

From the 278th District Court

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 23,819

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Sonny Wilson, an inmate, filed a lawsuit against the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division for the alleged loss and destruction 

of some of his personal property. The trial court granted TDCJ’s plea to the jurisdiction, 

and Wilson appealed. We affirm. 

PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION

In his first issue, Wilson contends that the trial court erred in granting TDCJ’s 

plea to the jurisdiction. Specifically, he argues that because he raised claims under the 

Texas and United States Constitutions and the Texas Government Code, not just the 
Wilson v. TDCJ-ID Page 2

Texas Tort Claims Act, granting the plea to the jurisdiction was improper. He also 

argues that the State has waived immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act for 

property taken from inmates.

Generally, the State of Texas has sovereign immunity from suit unless waived by 

the Legislature. State v. Shumake, 199 S.W.3d 279, 283 (Tex. 2006); Gen. Servs. Comm'n v. 

Little-Tex Insulation Co., 39 S.W.3d 591, 594 (Tex. 2001). Immunity from suit defeats a 

trial court's subject matter jurisdiction and is properly asserted in a plea to the 

jurisdiction. Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217, 225-226 (Tex. 

2004). Under the Texas Tort Claims Act, as it pertains to this case, a governmental unit 

in the state is liable for property damage proximately caused by the wrongful act or 

omission or the negligence of an employee acting within his scope of employment if the 

property damage arises from the operation or use of a motor-driven vehicle or motordriven equipment and the employee would be personally liable to the claimant 

according to Texas law. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 101.0021 (Vernon 2005).

Wilson specifically alleged in his original petition and in his first supplemental 

petition that his claim arose under the Texas Tort Claims Act. Wilson did not allege any 

claim under the Texas or United States Constitutions nor did he allege any claim under 

the Texas Government Code. Further, Wilson did not allege that his property damage 

arose out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor driven equipment. Thus, the Texas Tort 

Claims Act does not waive immunity for Wilson’s claim. Because immunity was not 

waived, the trial court did not err in granting TDCJ’s plea to the jurisdiction. Wilson’s 

first issue is overruled.
Wilson v. TDCJ-ID Page 3

AMEND PLEADINGS

In his second issue, Wilson argues that he should have been allowed to amend 

his pleadings. A pleader must be given an opportunity to amend in response to a plea 

to the jurisdiction only if it is possible to cure the pleading defect. Tex. A&M Univ. Sys. 

v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840 (Tex. 2007). However, a plaintiff's suit should be 

dismissed when either the pleadings alone or the jurisdictional evidence demonstrates 

that the plaintiff's suit incurably falls outside any waiver of sovereign immunity. Id. 

Here, Wilson’s pleadings alone demonstrate that his suit incurably falls outside any 

waiver of sovereign immunity. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in failing to 

allow Wilson to amend his pleadings, and Wilson’s second issue is overruled. 

UNDUE PREJUDICE

In his fourth issue, Wilson contends that he was possibly subjected to undue 

prejudice by the trial court. Specifically, Wilson complains that he had no opportunity 

to organize his documents during argument in the trial court, and was not allowed to 

respond after TDCJ’s argument. He also complains that the order granting the plea to 

the jurisdiction reflects that the trial court considered the plea to the jurisdiction. 

Wilson believes that that recitation means that the court did not consider his pleadings. 

Further, Wilson complains that a smiley face made out of exclamation marks on a 

printed docket sheet, which is not in the record before us, indicates the trial court was 

happy to close Wilson’s case. 

Wilson has not presented any case authority which would suggest that these 

instances subjected him to undue prejudice. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). Accordingly, this 
Wilson v. TDCJ-ID Page 4

issue is improperly briefed and presents nothing for review. Id. 33.1. Wilson’s fourth 

issue is overruled.

CONCLUSION

Because the trial court granted TDCJ’s plea to the jurisdiction and not its motion 

to dismiss pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, we need not 

address Wilson’s third issue about the propriety of such a dismissal.

Having overruled each issue properly before us and necessary for a resolution of 

this appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and

Justice Davis

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed December 8, 2010

[CV06]