Nabe lek is incarc erated in Texas state prison. 1 

### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00 256 -CV

Iv o N abe le k, App e lla nt

v. The Co ur t o f Cr im ina l A ppe als , The Supr e m e Co ur t o f Te xa s , The Hon orable Louise Pe arson, The Hon orable Blake Haw thorne, The Hon orable Denise Collins, and The Hon orable Debbie Stricklin, App ellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-05- 0017 84 , HO NORAB LE WI LLIAM E. BENDER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N

I vo Nabe lek, proc eedingpro se, appe al s from the district cour t’s order dismiss ing 1 his c la i m s a g a i n s t a

p p e l l e e s f o r w a n t o f j u r i s d i c t i o n . H e c o n t e n d s t h a t ( 1 ) t h e t r i a l c o u rt e r re d in failing to wait unt i l h i s wr itten response to the a ppellees’ motion to di smiss was filed; (2) the g rounds stated in appe llees’ motion to dismiss, including the lack of a justiciable c ontroversy , do not support the dismissal; and (3) the trial c ourt ref used to explain why it dismissed his c laims “without pr e jud ic e .” We a ff

ir m. Nabe lek’s complaints in this cause f iled in Travis County

arise f rom the handling and dispositi on of ot her causes of action in the Harris County district courts, the Texas Court of Criminal Ap pe a ls, the Te xas Sup re me Court , a nd the Un ite d St a te s Su

pr e me Cou

rt . N a be le k a lle g e s g e ne ra llyNabe lek also sued Ha rris County

District Clerk Charles B aca risse in this cause . Howeve r, 2 the c la ims a g a ins t B a c a ri sse a re no t be fo re us be c a us e the y we re se ve re d a

nd tr a ns fe rr e d to Ha

rr is County pursuant to B aca

risse’s motion to transfer

venue. Nabe lek sued Troy C. B ennett, J r. in his officia l c apac ity as cler k of the cour

t of criminal 3 a pp e a ls. B e c a

us e B e nn e tt h a s b e e n r e pla c e d a s c le rk of the c ourt of cri min a l a

pp e a ls b y L ou ise Pearson, she has bee n substitut ed as de fenda nt/appellee. See Tex. R. App. P . 7.2(a)

. 2 that lawsuits in which he was a party in the district courts of Ha rris County

wer e improper ly

handled by the cler

k and that his rig hts were prejudice d by a lac k of ade quate pr ocedur es as we ll as inaction 2

or inc or re c t a c tio n b y

the dis tr ic t ju dg e s p re sid ing . H is c omp la int s in thi s c a us e a ri se fr om his prev i o u s s u i t s for clemency , nunc pro tunc ref ormation of a judg ment, DNA testing , and wr its of ha be a s c or pu s and mand a mus in H a rr is C ounty . H e c ha lle ng e d th e de nia l of rel ief in t he Ha rr is County s u it s , in s o me in s ta n c e s , to th e e xte n t o f s e e k in g a w r it o f c e rti o r a r i in th e U n ite d States S upreme Court. He asse rts in this cause that his rig hts to due proce ss, acc ess to the cour ts, equal pr ote c tio n, a nd

pr o s e re pr e se ntatio n w e re vio la te d in the pr ior c ase s b y c le ri c a l f a ilure s to fi le ple a din g s, pa ss t

he ple a din g s a lon g to t

he jud g e s, a nd

fa ilure to f

or wa rd the ple a din g s to a

pp e llate

c ourt s, a s we ll as by the jud g e s’ fa ilure s to con sid e r or pr op e rl y ru le on his ple a din g s. Na be le k a lso contends that, whe n denying his ha beas ap p l i ca t i ons, the trial cour ts improperly

failed to make finding s of fa ct, issued only conclusions of law, and made additional rec ommendations that the court of cr iminal appeals “ then adopted blindly .”

Nabe lek complains about the judge s of the court of cr iminal appeals a nd cler k. He 3 contends that they

denied him due pr ocess by failing to stay

his origina l habea s actions pending results in a DNAsuit. He complains that he wa s denied a cce ss to that court by those judg es’ r efusa l to gr ant him leave to f

ile a petition f

or writ of mandamus that would order the Houston trial cour

tNa be le k s ue d A nd

re w We be r i n h is o ff

ic ia l c a pacit y as supr e me c ourt

c le rk . B e c a

us e 4 Weber ha s been r eplac ed as c lerk by Blake Ha

wthorn e, Hawthor

ne has be en substituted as defe ndant/appellee

. See id

. 3 to enterta in his mot ion to issue a judgme nt nunc pro tunc. Na belek a lso complains that the limit ed space available on the court of criminal appea ls’s presc ribed habeas application form did not allow him to e xpla in wh y his mor e tha n se ve nty a dd iti on a l c la ims c ou ld no t have be e n br ou g ht in his

or ig ina l pe tit ion . H e c on te nd s th a t th e fo rm inc or re c tly re qu ir e s th a t he state the “ re a so ns ” he c ou ld not have broug ht the claims pre viously , instead of mee ting the la w’s re quirement of a

statement of “fa cts” a s to why

they could not have be en pre sented. Na belek a lso contends t hat the rule prohibiting the cler k from filing habea s applications that are not on the pre scribed f orm is unconstituti onal. See Tex. R. App. P . 73.2.

Nabe lek also complains that the Tex as S u p reme Court and its clerk imp ro pe rl y 4 classified a

case in which he ha d filed a pe tition for reviewas a criminal action. He conte nds that thi s mis c la ssi fi c a tio n le d the c ourt to e rr by tr a ns fe rr ingthe pe tit ion to t he c ourt of c ri min a l a

pp e a ls, thus depriving him of acc ess to the Texas Supreme Court and of the opportunity to have the me rits of his claim considere d. He a lso complains ab o u t t h e United St ates Supreme Court’s decr ee (o ve r Jus tic e Ste ve ns ’s dis se nt) that he must pa y a $3 00 do c ke tin g fe e a nd

c omp ly wi th S up re me Court Rule 33.1 before he ca n pursue a

ny non-cr iminal relief a t that court. He as s er ts that the Sup re me Court

jus tic e s ( oth e r t

ha n Just ic e Ste ve ns ) a

re de nyinghim

a c c e ss t o th a t c ourt

. Nabe lek reque sted that the Tra vis County

District Court issue injunctions requiring

a nd pr oh ibi tin g c e rt a in a c tio ns by the c le rk s, jud g e s, a nd jus tic e s of the Ha rr is C ounty

Di str ic t Co ur

t, the T e xa s C o u rt o f C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s , t h e T e xa s S u p r e m e C o u rt , a n d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Su pr e me4

Cour t. I n h is p r a y e r

f o r r e li e f , N a b e le k r e qu e s te d

a d e c la r a to r y ju d g me n t d e c la

r in g h is r ig h ts a nd whether they had bee n violated in addition to the injunctive relief r equeste d above. The a ppellees f iled a plea to the j urisdiction. They contende d that Nabe lek’s petition did not present a justiciable controve rsy . They argued that, bec ause the dis t ri ct cour t was not

e mpo we re d to re qu ir e c ourt s of e qu a l or hig he r a uth or ity to d o a

ny thi ng , th e re lie f r e qu e ste d w ou ld

no t r e so lve the c on tr ov e rs y be tw e e n the pa rt ie s. Th e y fu

rt he r c on te nd e d that Na

be le k’ s pe tit ion

is ba r r e d b y r e s ju d ic a ta b e c a

u s e a f e d e r a l d is tr ic t c o u rt h a d a lr e a d y r e s o lv e d th e c la ims invol ving judge s Colli ns and Stricklin and the judg es of the c ourt of cr iminal appea ls by dismiss ing the m for failure to state a c laim. The appe llees also urg ed that Na belek’ s claims are impermissible collatera l attacks on de cisions made in other suits. The district cour t gr anted the ple a to the jurisdiction. Be cause the exist ence of subject- matter jurisdicti o n i s a question of law , we revie w de novo the trial court’s ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction. Te x as De p’ t of Pa rk s & W ild lif e v. Miranda , 133 S.W .3d 217, 228 (Tex. 2004). Unless a defe ndant pleads a nd proves that a lleg ations in a plaintiff’s pe tition were fr audulently made, we take a s true the f acts plea ded in the petiti on to determine w hether

those fac ts support jurisdiction i n the trial cour t. Te x as Ass’n of B us . v. Texas Air Control Bd. , 852 S.W .2d 440, 446 (Tex. 1993). I f nece ssary , we may revie w the entire

rec ord to deter

mine if the trial cour

t had jurisdiction. Bla n d In dep. Sch. D ist. v. Blue , 34 S.W .3d 547, 554-55 (Te x . 2000). A judgme nt may be re verse d only

for a n err or that either

probably cause d the re nd iti on

of a n im pr op e r j ud g me nt o r p ro ba bly pr e ve nte d th e a

pp e lla nt f ro m pr e se nti ng his appea l. Tex. R . App. P. 44.1(a).

Na be le k i n i t i a l l y

c o mpl a ins in t

his a pp e a l th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d b y fa ili ng to w a it to rule on the plea

to the jurisdiction until his response wa s filed. The plea to the jurisdiction was5

filed on Jul y

26, 2005. Nabe lek contends tha t, due to his incarc eration, he did not rece ive the plea until Jul y 29, 2005. Although he mailed his r esponse on Aug ust 4, 2005, the trial court sig ned the

o r d e r g r a n ti n g th e p le a o n A u g u s t 8 , 2 0 0 5

— a f te r th e h e a r in g ( in w h ic h N a b e le k p a rti c ip a te d by telephone) , but two day s befor e Nabelek’ s response was filed in the t rial court on Aug ust 10, 2005. Na be le k c omp la ins tha

t he did n ot hav e a re a so na ble c ha nc e to r e c e ive the ple a , r e se a rc h h is response , and have his mailed response r ece ived by the cour t before it ruled. Na be le k ha s no t sh ow n that the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s fa ilure to w a it f or his wr itt e n r e sp on se to the plea to the jurisdiction bef ore g ranting the pl ea probably resulted in an imprope r dec ision. He participa ted in the hea

ring by telephone an d p re sented his ar g uments orally befor e the tria l court g rante d the plea to the jur isdiction. Further , the district court ha d Nabel ek ’s wr itten response f or twenty -eig ht da

y s while it had plenar

y power to rec onsider and w ithdraw its order . The district cour t did not do so. See Te x. R. C iv. P. 3 29 b( d) . T he c ourt ’s a c tio n h a s n ot a ff e c te d N a be le k’ s a bil ity to prese nt his a

rg uments on appea l. Be cause we revie w Nabe lek’s complaints as a matter of la w—the same standa

rd applica

ble in the district court—Na belek’ s arg uments to the district court c an be considere d on appea l w ithout any prejudice . Nabe lek’s re sponse is in the rec ord bef ore us, a nd we will consider his arguments therein to t h e ex t en t that he pre sents them on appea l. We are not pe rs ua de d th a t th e tim ingof the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s he a ri ng a nd rul in g is th e so ur c e of a ny re ve rs ibl e

err or in this cause.

Nabe lek contends tha t the district c ourt err ed in f inding that his c laims do not pre sent

a justiciable controve rsy . A justiciable controve rsy exis ts w here there is a rea l a nd s u b s t an tial controve rsy

involving a g enuine c onflict of tang ible interests and not merely a theor etical dispute. Bo nh am Sta te Ba nk

v . B e ad le , 90 7 S.W. 2d 46 5, 46 7 (T e x. 19 95 ). A d ist ri c t c ourt ha s th e po we r t oThese include a reque st f or rec ommendation of pardon or commutation of sentenc e filed 5 in 2005 in which the pleading s were reje cted a s an improper ex parte communication, a 2004 moti on fo r jud g me nt nunc pr o tun c in a c a se tr ie d in 1 99 4, a ha be a s a pp lic a tio n f

ile d in 19 99 a nd he a rd in 2001, a succ essive habe as application filed and dismissed in 2003, a motion filed in 2004 to r eopen both the 1999 and 2003 habea s applications, a petition f or revie w filed in 200 3 , an d s ev eral succe ssive “re place ment” petitions filed there afte r. 6 issue injunctions and other wr its necessa ry to protect its jurisdicti o n . T ex . Gov’t Code Ann. § 24.011 (West 2004)

. A district court a lso has the power to declar e rig hts, status, and other leg al rela tions whet h er o r n o t fu rt her r elief is or c ould be claimed. T ex. C iv. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 3 7. 00 3 ( Wes t 1997 ). A de c larator y jud g me nt i s a

pp ro pr ia te on ly

if a jus tic ia ble c on tr ov e rs y

e xists as to the rig hts and status of the par ties and the c ontroversy

will be resol ved by

the dec lara tion soug ht. Bonham State Bank, 907 S.W .2d at 467.

We conclude that the court did n o t er r by concluding that Nabe lek’s cla ims do not present a

justiciable controve rsy . The Te x as Supreme Court ha s held that “[o] ne cour t has no power to enjoin official a ction by the judg e of a

nother c ourt of co -o rd i n at e p o wer and j u ri s d iction.” Lord v. Clayton , 3 52 S.W. 2d 71 8, 72 3 ( Te x. 19 61 ); Flores v. Pe schel , 9 2 7 S.W .2d 20 9, 21 2 (T e x. Ap p. —Co rp us Chr ist i 19 96 , or ig

. pr oc e e din g ). I f a c ourt c a nn ot e njo in i ts p e e rs , it

c a nn ot e njo in o ff

ic ia l a c tio n b y

jus tic e s, jud g e s, a nd

c le rk s of

c ourt s th a t are su

pe ri or to i t in the jud ic ia l hi e rarch y . W e fi nd a nd a re c ite d to no a

uth or ity to t he c on tr a ry . T hu s, if

the Tr a vis County District Court had is sued t he requested injunctions , they would have been void. Se e Lor d , 35 2 S. W.2 d a t 72 3. Na

be le k’ s r e qu e ste d d e c lara tio ns a re lin ke d w ith the inj un c tiv e re lie f b e c a us e he asserts that the officials’ actions (or failures to act) that he wishes were restra ined (or c ompelled) violated his r ights. Fur

ther, the reque sted injunctions and decla rations appe ar to re late to ca uses that hav e be e n li tig a te d to fi na l ju dg me nt o r d ism iss a l. T h e r e f o r e , o r d e r in g th e c o u rt c le r k to present 57

documents or include them in a re cord in such a case ov er which the c ourt no long er ha s plenary po we r w ou ld n ot v e st t

he jud g e s a nd

jus tic e s w iththe po we r t o a lte r t he re su lt i n th os e c a se s. Th is would not resolve the unde rly ing c ontroversy . Be cause th e co n t roversy would not have be en resolved by

the re quested injunct io n

o r d e c lara tion, the disputes presented w ere not justi ciable be fore the dis tr ic t c ourt . T he dis tr ict c ourt c or re c tly dis mis se d N a

be le k’ s c la ims a s f

a ili ng to p re se nt a j u s t i c i a b l e c o n t r o v e r s y. Na be le k als o co mpl a ins that the dis tr ic t c ourt fa ile d to e xpla in w hy

it d ism iss e d h is cl ai m s “w i t h o u tp re

j u d i ce . ” H e c o n t en d s t h at t h i s l ef t h i m u n ce rt ai n ab o u t h o w t o p ro ce ed , al t h o u gh he ac knowl edges tha t the district court could not advise him. We, too, cannot issue a n advisory opinion. W

essely E nergy Corp. v. J

ennings , 7 36 S.W. 2d

62 4, 62 8 ( Te x. 19 87 ). We a re lim ite d to resolving those issues nece ssary to the dispositi on of the appea l, and ca n reve rse only

for ha rmful

err ors. See Tex. R. Ap p . P. 44.1(a), 47.1. We ar e not per suaded tha t either the dismissal without prejudice or the fa ilure to explain probably led to an improper

decision or pr obably

preve nted Nabe lek from pr operly

prese nting his appe al. See id. 44.1(a)

. Affir med.

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: May

14, 2008