1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 0 8 - 3 2 8 - CV CU R T I S R . F R ANC I S AP P E L L ANT V . D A N N Y H O RTO N A PPELL EES AND DE B OR AH F OR D

----- ----- --

FR O M THE 30TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F W I CH I TA CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I nt r oduc t i on A ppe l l antCurt i s R . Fr anc i s app ea l s t he t r i alco urt ’ s or dergr ant i ng t he su m m a ry j u d g m e n t m o ti o n o f ap p e l l e e s D a n n yH o rt o n an d D e b o rah F o rd. In2 ... A ppe l l antco nt end s t hats um m ary j udgm entw asi m pr ope ran d t hatt he

t r i al court abused i t s di scr et i on by denyi ng hi s m ot i on f ornew t r i al , w hi ch al so c o n c e rne d the p rop ri e ty o f t h e su m m a ry j u d g m e n t.

3 ... The cl ai m s br oughtt hr ough t he TTC A i n a ppe l l ant ’ s or i gi nalpe t i t i on con ce r ned t he con di t i onsofhi s con f i nem ent , w hi ch he al l ege d w er e u ns ani t ary. 2 t w o r el at ed i ssues, 2a p p e l l a n ta s s e rt st h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rte r r e d b yg r ant i ng appel l ees’ m ot i on becau se t he m ot i on di d not r el at e to t he l egal t heor i es he had pl ed att he t i m e i tw asf i l ed. W e r eve r sean d r em and . B a c k g rou n d F a c ts T h i s i s th e t h ir d ap p e a l o f t h i s c a se to o u r co u rt . SeeFranci s v. T D CJ-CID , N o . 0 2 -0 6 -0 0 3 5 2 -C V , 2 0 0 7 W L2 4 6 0 2 7 0 , a t * 1 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth A u g . 3 1 , 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t.) (m e m . o p .); F ra n cisv. T

D CJ-CID , 188 S. W . 3d 79 9, 80 0 ( Tex . A pp. — FortW ort h 2 00 6, no pet . ) . Because t he p r ocedu r al h is t o ry o f t h is c a s e is w e ll d e t a ile d b y o u rp r e v io u so p in io n s , w e w ill o n lyb r ie f ly s u m m a r iz e t h e f a c t sre le v a n tt o d is p o s it io n o ft h e is s u e sin t h isa p p e a l. I n O ct o b e r 2 0 0 4 , appel l ant , an i nm at e, f i l ed a pr o se pet i t i on agai nst app el l ee s and t he Texa s D epa rt m e n to fCr i m i n a lJ u s t i c e- C or r ec t i ona l I ns t i t ut i ons D i vi si on ( TD C J- C I D ) al l egi ng com m on l aw t ort s and vi ol at i ons oft he T exas c o n s ti tu ti o n a n d s e e k i n g re l i e f th ro u g h t h e T e x a sT o rt C l a i m sA c t (T T C A ). 3 S ee Tex. Ci v. Pr ac . & Rem . Code Ann. §§ 101 . 001 –. 109 ( V er non 2005 & Supp. 20 08 ) . Th e t hr ee def endan t s f i l ed m ot i ons t o di sm i ss underchapt erf ourt een4 ... Th atgr i evance deci si on r el at ed t o an al l eged deni al o faccess t o boo ks

f r om a l aw l i br ary. 3 o f th e c i v i l p ra c ti c e a n d re m e d i e sc o d e . S ee i d. §§ 14. 001 –. 014 ( V er non 2 0 0 2 ) . T he t r i al co urt di sm i sse d al l of ap pe l l an t ’ s cl ai m s. O n ap pe a l , w e r e v e r s e d t h e t r ia l c o u rt ’s d is m is s a l o r d e rt o t h e e x t e n tt h a titre la t e d t o c la im s bas ed on a Sept em ber27, 2004 pr i so n gr i ev ance dec i si on. 4 F ra n cis , 188 S. W . 3d a t805. A fte r re m a n d , th e th re e d e fe n d a n ts fi l e d s e p a ra te m o ti o n sf o r s u m m a ry j udg m ent . H ow ever , t he m ot i ons di d not a d dr ess appel l ant ’ s cl ai m s t hen pend i ng un dert he Tex as con st i t ut i on. Th e tr i al co urtgr ant ed al l t hr ee m ot i ons, a n d a p p e l l a n t a g a i n a p p e a l e d . W e a ffir m e d th e tri a l c o u rt’sg ra n t o f s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t to T D C J -C ID in a ll re s p e c ts , a n d w e a l s o a ffir m e d th e tri a l c o u rt’s g ran t o f s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t t o ap p e l l e e s o n ap p e l l a n t’ s fe d e ral civi l ri g h ts cl ai m s, butw e r ever sed t he su m m a ry j udg m ent s i n appel l ees’ f avoras t hey re l a te d to c l a i m su n d e r th e T e x a sc o n s ti tu ti o n . F ra n cis , 2007 W L2460 270, a t*3–6 . F o llo w in g t h e s e c o n d r e m a n d , in S e p t e m b e r2 0 0 7 , a p p e lla n ta m e n d e d h is p e ti ti o n to a d d a n e g l i g e n c e c l a i m re l a te d to h i sa l l e g e d d e n i a l o f a c c e s sto c o u rt a n d t o c la r if yt h a th e s o u g h to n lyin ju n c t iv e a n d d e c la r a t o ryre lie fo n h isc la im s unde rt he Texa s con st i t ut i on. Af t erf i l i ng ot herva r i ousdoc um ent s, ap pel l ant5 ... N o th i n g i n the rec o rd i n d i c a tes tha t ap p e l l a n t se rve d T D C J -C I D w i th

c i ta ti o n f o l l o w i n g h i sre a s s e rti o n o f c l a i m sa g a i n s t i t a fte r w e a ffir m e d s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t i n i ts fa v o r o n a l l g ro u n d s . S e eSc oggin sv. Bes tIn dus . Unif . S upp ly Co. , 8 9 9 S .W .2 d 2 7 6 , 2 7 8 (T e x . A p p .— H o u sto n [ 1 4 th D i st.] 1 9 9 5 , n o w ri t) ; Evans v. Hoag , 711 S. W . 2d 744, 746 ( Te x. App . — Hous t on [ 14t h Di s t . ] 1986 , w r itre f ’d n .r .e .) (c o n c lu d in g t h a tt o b e b r o u g h tb a c kin t o a s u ita ft e rd is m is s a l, a p a rtym u s t b e s e rv e d a g a i n w i th c i ta ti o n ).

6 ... A ppe l l antcert i f i ed t hathem ai l ed t he se con d a m end ed pet i t i on t o t he cor r ectaddr ess ofthe assi st antatt or ney gener al w ho r epr esent ed appel l ees at t ha t t i m e . W hi l e a pp e l l e e s ’ n e w a t t or ne y ( w ho f i r s ta pp e a r e d i n Fe br ua ry 2008 af t erappel l antf i l ed t he second am ended pet i t i o n ) cl ai m s t hatshe never r ec ei ved t he pet i t i on, ap pel l ant ’ s ce rt i f i ca t i on i s “p r i m a f ac i e e vi den ceoft he f a c t o f s e rv i c e .”T e x . R . C i v . P . 2 1 a ; se e Mathi s v. Lo ck wood, 1 6 6 S . W . 3d 7 4 3 , 7 4 5 (T e x . 2 0 0 5 ). 4 f i l ed a second am ended pet i t i on i n Janu ary 20 08 . That pet i t i on r eassert ed c la im s a g a in s t T D C J -C ID 5 a n d m a i n ta i n e d c l a i m sa g a i n s t a p p e l l e e s . H o w e v e r, w h i l e the p e ti ti o n c o n ti n u e d to fo c u s o n ap p e l l a n t’ s a l l e g e d d e n i a l o f ac c e ss to c o u rt(t h r o u g h d e p r iv a t io n o f la w b o o k s ), it a b a n d o n e d t h e t h e o r ie sp r e v io u s ly as se rt ed unde rt he Texa s con st i t ut i on a nd c om m on l aw ne gl i gence . I ns t ea d, i tfocused s ol e l y on c l a i m so fp e r s on a l i nj ur i e sc a us e d bya pp e l l e e s ’ a l l e ged m i suse of t angi bl e per sonal pr opert y ( t he l aw boo ks and a l aw boo k req u e st f o r m) , wh i c h a p p e l l a ntcl a i m e d wa i v e d i mm u n i t yu n d e rt h e T T CA . 6 S ee Tex. C i v . P ra c . &R e m . C o d e A n n . § 1 0 1 .0 2 1 (2 ). I n M a rch 2 0 0 8 , a p p e l l e e s fi l e d an o th e r m o ti o n fo r s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t. H ow ever , t he m ot i on add r essed onl y appel l ant ’ s pr i orcl ai m s undert he T exas7 ... S peci f i cal l y, the m ot i on st at ed t hatthe “i ssue f orconsi der at i on” w as

w het herap pel l antco ul d “m ai nt ai n an act i on agai ns t[ app el l ee s] under. . . t he T e x a s C o n s ti tu ti o n .”

8 ... A l t hough app el l ant su ed TD C J- C I D i n hi s se con d am end ed pet i t i on a nd a l th o u g h th e s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t c o n c e rn e d o n l y a p p e l l e e s , th e s u m m a ry j udg m enti s st i l l a f i nal , ap peal abl e o r derb ecause n ot hi ng i n t he r ecor d i ndi cat es a p p e l l a n t’si n te n ti o n t o o b ta i n n e w s e rv i c eo f c i ta ti o n o n T D C J -C ID . S e eM. O. D ental Lab v. Rape , 1 3 9 S .W .3 d 6 7 1 , 6 7 4(T e x . 2 0 0 4 ). 5 const i t ut i on; i td i d not addr ess hi s new l y pl ed cl ai m s. 7 I n M ay 20 08 , t he t r i al c o u rtg r a n t e d a p p e lle e s ’ s u m m a ryju d g m e n tm o t io n a n d d is m is s e d a ll c la im s agai nstappel l ees w i t h pr ej udi ce. 8Af t erf i l i ng a m ot i on f orne w t r i al , ap pel l ant t im e lyf ile d h is n o t ic e o ft h is a p p e a l.

Th e Su m m ary Judg m entW as I m pr oper A def end antw ho conc l us i vel y nega t esatl ea stonees se nt i alel em entof a c a u s e o f a c ti o n i se n ti tl e d to s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t o n th a t c l a i m . IHSCe da rs Trea tm ent

Ctr. of D eSoto, Tex. , I

nc. v. Mas on , 1 4 3 S . W . 3d 794, 798 ( Tex. 2 0 0 4 ); seeT e x . R . C i v . P . 1 6 6 a (b ), (c). A t r i al courtcannot gr antsum m ary j udg m enton gr oun ds notpr esent ed i n th e s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t m o ti o n ; w h e n th e c o u rt d o e ss o , re m a n d is p ro p e r. Se eJo hn s o nv. Brewer & Pr itch a rd , P. C. , 7 3 S .W .3 d 1 9 3 , 2 0 4(T e x . 2 0 0 2 ); S ci . Sp ectrum , I

nc. v. Marti

nez , 9 4 1 S .W .2 d 9 1 0 , 9 1 2 (T e x . 1 9 9 7 ); F ra n cis , 20 07 W L 24 60 27 0, at*2 . W hen a p l ai nt i f fam ends i t s pet i t i on t o assertnew l ega l t heo r i es , t he def end ant ’ s m ot i on f orsum m ary j udgm entm us tco r r es pond9 ... A ppe l l ee s’ br i efal so con ce r ns onl y t he pr opr i et y ofs um m ary j udgm ent

und erappel l ant ’ s pr evi ousl y assert ed T exas const i t ut i onal cl ai m s. 6 to th o s e n e w c l a i m s . S ee Joh n so n v. Fusel i er, 83 S. W . 3d 892, 898 ( Tex. A p p .— T e x a rk a n a 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t.); Jones v. Ray I ns. A gency , 59 S. W . 3d 739, 749 ( Tex. A pp. — C or pusChr i st i2001 ) , ( i ndi ca t i ng t hatt he m ova ntm us tt ai l or

” th e m o ti o n t o n e g a te t h e n e w l yp l e d th e o ri e s ” ), pet. denied, 92 S . W . 3d 530 (T e x . 2 0 0 2 ). A ppe l l ee s’ su m m ary j udgm entm ot i on s ol el y c onc er ned cl ai m s unde rt he T e x a s c o n s t it u t io n ; t h e s e c la im sh a d b e e n a b a n d o n e d b ya p p e lla n ta tt h e t im e t he m ot i on w asf i l ed. 9 T h e tri a l c o u rt th e re fo re e rre d b yg ra n ti n g s u m m a ry j udgm enton a ppe l l ant ’ s so l e r em ai ni ng pe r so nali nj ury c l ai m b r ou ghtt hr ough th e a l l e g e d w a i v e r o f i m m u n i tyb yth e T T C A . See Johns on , 73 S . W . 3d a t204; Jones , 59 S. W . 3d at 749 . Thus , w e s us t ai n a ppe l l ant ’ s f i r sti ss ue cha l l eng i ng th e p ro p ri e ty o f th e tri a l c o u rt’sg ra n t o f s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t, a n d w e th e re fo re necessar i l y sust ai n appel l ant ’ s second i ssue concer ni ng t he t r i al court ’ s deni al o fh ism o t io n f o rn e w t r ia l.7 C onc l us i on H a v i n g s u s ta i n e d a p p e l l a n t’si s s u e s , w e re v e rs e th e tri a l c o u rt’ss u m m a ry j udgm enti n f avo rofap pel l ee s, an d w e r em and ap pel l ant ’ s r em ai ni ng c l ai m f or f urt herpr oceedi ngs.

P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: L I V I N G STO N , D A U PH I N O T, an d GA RD N ER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: M a r c h 5, 2009