### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-10-00017- CV

Juan E nriqu ez, A ppellan t

v. The Hon orable Rhonda H urley, Indi vidu ally and in h er Offi cial Capacity; The Hon orable Scott H. Je nki ns, In divid ually an d in his O ff icial Capacity; The Hon orable Stephen Yelenosky, In divid ually an d in his O ff icial Capacity; The Hon orable G isela D. Triana-Doyal, Ind ividu ally and in h er Offi cial Capacity; The Hon orable Darle ne Byrne, Indi vidu ally and in h er Offi cial Capacity; The Hon orable Suzann e Covington, Ind ividu ally and in h er Offi cial Capacity; The Hon orable Lora Livings ton, Ind ividu ally and in h er Offi cial Capacity; The Hon orable John K. Diet z, Indivi dual ly and in h is Of fi cial Capacity; and The Hon orable Mar garet A. Cooper, Individ ually an d in her Off icial Capacity, Appellees

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 53RD J UDICIAL DI STRICT NO. D-1 -GN-0 9-0 0205 5, H ONO RAB LE B RENDA CHAP MAN, J UDGE P RESIDING

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

This appea l involves claims pe r ip h e r a l to E n r iq u e z v
. O we n s , N o
. D

- 1

- G

N

- 0 6

- 0 0 1219 (345th Dist. Ct., Tra v i s C o u nty , Tex. Apr. 24, 2009) (“ Owens ”). I n Owens , J uan Enriquez—an inmate and repe at litigant —asser ted cause s of action cente ring on his la ck of succe ss in obtaining 1

Enriquez was convicted of murder with malice in 19 6 8 and sentenc ed to death afte r he 1 “s h o t t o d ea t h his g irlfriend, her fathe r, her brother, a woman he abducte d, and a Texas Hig hway Patrolman.” Enriquez v. Procunier , 752 F.2d 111, 113 (5th Cir. 1984) (fe dera l habea s proce eding ). T h e jury imposed the death penalty for the capital murder of the abducte e. Id. I n fo u r o t h er proce eding s, Enriquez pled g uilty to m u rd er and rec eived three concur rent 99-y ear sentenc es and one 25-y ear sentenc e. Id. Enriquez’s death sentenc e was commuted to life imprisonment afte r the statutory scheme under which his ca p i t al punishment was imposed was decla red unconstitutionalparole

. After he was unsucce ssful in litigating t h es e cl ai m s in the district court, Enriquez

appea led, and we aff

irmed. See Enriquez v. Owen s , No

. 03-09-00237- CV, 2010 WL 1507821 (Tex. App.—Austin Apr. 14, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“ Enriquez I

”) and Enriquez v. Owens , No. 03-09-00309- CV, 2010 WL 2698764 (Tex. App.—Austin J uly 9, 2010, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (“ Enriquez II

”). Meanw hile, Enriquez also broug ht a sepa rate suit ag ainst appellee s, all of whom

are judge s who prese ntly preside or former ly presided over Travis County district courts that exercise c ivil jurisdi ction. Enriquez challeng ed the leg ality of t he L ocal Rul es of Ci vil Procedure for the District Courts of Travis County , Texas, and soug ht decla ratory and injunctive relief , as well

as damag es and attorney s’ fee s. Appellee s moved to dismiss under chapte r 14 of the civil pr actice and reme d i es co d e. S

ee Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 14.001-.014 (West 2002). The district court (with an out-of-c ounty visiti ng judge presiding ) g rante d appellee s’ motion to dismiss without stating the g rounds. Enrique z appea ls the judgme nt of dismiss al. We will aff irm the judg ment.
We need g o no far ther than to obs er v e that, as appellee s point out, Enriquez has not challeng ed ea ch of sever al alternative bases on which they soug ht dismiss al under chapte r 14. Appellee s asser

ted five g rounds for dismiss al: (1) Enriquez had filed a false decla ration disclosing his prior pro se litigation (he identified only three prior suits, y et he has filed at least eig hteen others),

see id. §§ 1 4 .003(a) (3), 14.004; (2) Enriquez’s suit constituted an impermissible collater al attack

on the district court’s prior judgme nt in Owens ; (3) absolute judicial immunit y barr ed Enriquez’s claims for monetary relief ; (4) Enriquez had failed to state a claim with arg uable leg al merit for

under the 1972 Furman v. Georgia decision. Enriquez v. Owens , No. 03-09-00309- CV, 2010 WL 2698764, at *1 (Te x . App.—Austin J uly 9, 2010, no pet. h.) (me m. op.). 2decla

ratory or injunctive re lief, see id. § 14.003(b)( 2); and (5) Enriquez had fa iled to state a c laim with arg uable l ega l m er i t for monetary relief

. On appeal, Enriquez challeng es onl y three of t hese
g rounds: (1) that judicial immunit y barr ed his claims for monetary relief , (2) that he failed to state a claim with arg uable lega l merit for declar atory or injunctive re lief, and (3) that he failed to state

a claim with arg uable leg al merit for monetary relief

. Enriquez fails to challenge t h e other 2

two g rounds raised by the motion—appellees’ conten t i o n s t h at he filed a false decla ration in violation of section 14.003(a) (3) and that his suit constituted an impermissible c ollatera l a ttack on a prior judg ment.

When, as here , a complained- of rul i n g or judgme nt rests on g ener al g rounds, the appellant must attack all independe nt bases or g rounds that fully support the ruling or judgme nt. See Oliphant Fin. LLC v. Angiano , 295 S.W .3d 422, 423-24 (Tex. App.— Dallas 2009, no pet.) (citing Britton v. Texas Dep’ t of Cr i minal Justice , 95 S.W .3d 676, 681 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no p et

. ))

. I f he does not, then we must aff irm the ruling or judgme nt. Britton , 95 S.W .3d at 681. This is so beca use we acc ept the validity of an unchalleng ed independe nt g round, and if that g round fully supports the judgme nt, any err or as to other g rounds would be harmless. Id.

Enriquez contends in his first four issues that an arg uable basis in law exis ts for his claims 2 that the local rules violate his state and fede ral rig hts of acc ess to the courts, the Texas Constit ution’s open courts provision, the equal protec tion provisions of the state and fede ral constitutions, and that appellee s ar e acting bey ond their authority in the way they apply the l ocal rules. I n his rema ining fo u r i ssues, he challeng es whether appellee s are immune from judgme nt when adopting and enfor cin g t h e local rules; whether the district court err ed by finding that appellee s’ adopting the local rules is an inhere ntly judicial act, not an administrative o n e; whether the district court had discretion to find that Enriquez had no standing to pursue his claims; and whether the district court err ed by dismiss ing his case with prejudice under chapte r 14 beca use t h e d ismiss al should not prejudice filing a

paid complaint making the same a lleg ations. 3The unchalleng ed false- decla ration a n d c o lla tera l-attac k g rounds eac h independe ntly support the district court’s judgme nt dismiss ing Enriquez’s claims ag ainst appellee s. See Tex. Civ.
Prac. & R em
. C o d e Ann. §§ 14.003(a) (3), .004(a) ; W hite v. State , 37 S.W .3d 562, 565 (Tex. App.—B eaumont 2001, no pet.) (af firming dismiss al of suit for failure to compl y with section 14.004); Reiss v. Reiss , 118 S.W .3d 439, 443 (Tex. 2003) (“I n g ener al, as long as the court
enter ing a judgme nt has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter and does not act outside its
capa city as a court, the judgme nt is not void” and may not be collater ally attacke d.). Consequently ,

we must aff

irm on these g rounds reg ardle ss of whether Enriquez’s appellate issues are meritorious.
Acco rd i n gly , we overr

ule Enriquez’s issues without rea ching their merits and aff irm the 3 district court’s judg ment.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice
Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: Aug ust 20, 2010

Nor do we rea ch sever al alterna t i v e ar g uments appellee s advocate for aff irming the 3 judgme nt. 4