NO. 12-14-00364-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ALFRED LEE STONE, 

APPELLANT

V.

SGT. ALLEN BASKIN,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 349TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HOUSTON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Alfred Lee Stone appeals the trial court’s order dismissing his lawsuit against “Sgt. Allen 

Baskin.” Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 14 applies to this appeal. We 

dismiss the appeal as frivolous.

INMATE LITIGATION–CHAPTER 14

Effective January 1, 2012, Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code 

was amended to apply to an action, including an appeal or an original proceeding, brought by an 

inmate in a trial court or in an appellate court, in which an affidavit of indigence is also filed. 

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 14.002 (West Supp. 2014). This means that the 

requirements of Chapter 14 apply when inmates file an appeal or an original proceeding in an 

appellate court just as when they file an action in a trial court. See id.

Chapter 14 requires an inmate to file an affidavit or declaration “relating to previous 

filings” in which the inmate must detail all previous actions filed pro se, other than a suit under 

the Texas Family Code. Id. § 14.004(a) (West Supp. 2014). The affidavit or declaration must be 

accompanied by a certified copy of his “inmate trust account statement” that “reflect[s] the 

balance of the account at the time the claim is filed and activity in the account during the six 

months preceding the date on which the claim is filed.” Id. § 14.004(c) (West Supp. 2014). The 
2

filings required under Chapter 14 are “an essential part of the process by which courts review 

inmate litigation.” Hickson v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397, 399 (Tex. App.–Waco 1996, no writ).

If the inmate fails to file the affidavit or declaration with the required information about 

previous filings or the inmate trust account statement, the trial court can dismiss the action 

without notice or hearing. See, e.g., Amir–Sharif v. Mason, 243 S.W.3d 854, 857 (Tex. App.–

Dallas 2008, no pet.); Thompson v. Rodriguez, 99 S.W.3d 328, 330 (Tex. App.–Texarkana 

2003, no pet.). Further, when an inmate fails to comply with the requirement for the affidavit or 

declaration of previous filings, the trial court may assume that the current action is substantially 

similar to one previously filed by the inmate and thus is frivolous. Bell v. Tex. Dep’t of 

Criminal Justice–Institutional Div., 962 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th Dist.] 

1998, pet. denied). We conclude that this caselaw interpreting the Chapter 14 requirements as 

they apply to actions filed in trial courts now applies to actions filed in appellate courts. See 

Douglas v. Turner, 441 S.W.3d 337, 338 (Tex. App.–Waco 2013, no pet.); see also TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 14.002.

In this appeal, Stone did not file an affidavit or declaration of previous filings. See TEX.

CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 14.004(a), (c). Because the requirements of Chapter 14 now 

apply to inmate proceedings in the courts of appeals, caselaw permits us to dismiss Stone’s 

appeal without notice.

DISPOSITION

Because Stone did not file an affidavit or declaration of previous filings, we dismiss this 

appeal as frivolous. See Bell, 62 S.W.2d at 158.

Opinion delivered January 14, 2015.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J. and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JANUARY 14, 2015

NO. 12-14-00364-CV

ALFRED LEE STONE,

Appellant

V.

SGT. ALLEN BASKIN,

Appellee

Appeal from the 349th District Court 

of Houston County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 14-0076)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same 

being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that 

this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed as frivolous; and that this decision be certified 

to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J. and Hoyle, J.