Don H . R eav is , J ust ic e (R et.) , Se v enth Cou rtof Appeal s, si tti ng by as si g nment. 1 Tex . G ov ’tC ode An n. §7 5.002( a) (1 ) (V er non 200 5)

. NO. 07-05 -000 4-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL E MA RC H 16, 2 009

_________

_________

_________

___ LAW RE NC E H IGG IN S, Appel lan t

v. RA ND ALL C OU NTY

SH ER IF FS OF FI CE ,

Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 25 1 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF RA NDA L L COU NT Y; NO. 50, 458 C; HON. PAT RICK PIRT LE, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J. and CAMPBELL , J., and REAVIS , S.J. 1 Lawrence Higg ins app eals f rom th e dism issal of his law suit against th e Rand all Cou nty Sher iff’s O ff ic e ( the County ) for w ant o f pros ecut ion

. He cont ends that 1) the tr ial
cour t er re d i n di smi ss ing hi s l aw sui t for his failu re to appear at a di smi ss al dock et w hen he
w a s i n c a rc e ra ted, a n d 2 ) t h e t r i a l c o u rtfa i l e d t o r u l e o n h i s m o t i o n fo r t h e i s s u a n c e o f a ben ch w arrant to secure his prese nce a t trial. W e disagree an d af f irm the order.T he o r derof di sm i ssal st at ed t hat no r equest f or set t i ng or cont i nuance had been pr esent ed t o t he 2 c o u rt. 2 Back gr ound Hi g g ins fil ed a lawsui t on September 17, 20 0 1, al leg ing thatthe Cou nty w as neg li g ent i n al low ing hi m to b e att ack ed by anot her j ail i nmate. Al thoug h Hig g ins fil ed a
re q uestfor a j ur

y tr ial and soug ht infor mati on on the sta tus of the l aw sui t on occ asi on, t he cl er k’ s record does not show thatthe Cou nty

w as ev er

se rv ed w it h proc ess . Fur ther more, the t ri al cour

t notifie d him that the ca se w as seton i ts dis mis sal doc ketfor A pr il 30, 2004, and thatit would be dism issed for wa n to f p ro secut ion pu rsuan t to T exas Rule of Civ il Procedu re 165a upon hi s fai lure to appear and show

good caus e w hy

i t s houl d be re tai ned. In respo nse, Hig gins mo v ed fo r the issuan ce of a ben ch w arrant a nd for a cont inua nce so that a benc h w ar ra nt coul d be is sued sec ur ing his attend ance at t he hear ing

. Y et, the t ri al
cour t did not r ule on e it her moti on. Rat her , on Aug ust18, 2004, itsi g ned an order dism issing the suit for w antof prosecu tion. Appe llant th en m oved to reinsta te th e cau se

2 on th e bas is that he had s how n due dil ig ence in pursui ng the caus e. The la tter w as ov er ru led by

operati on of l aw . Author it y Litigants may not be denie d access to courts simply beca use they are in m a tes. Hud son v. Pal

m er , 468 U.S. 517 , 523 , 104 S .Ct. 319 4, 82 L.E d.2 d 393 (1984 ). H owev er, an inm ate ’s ri ght to app ear in pe rson m ust be we ig h e d a ga in st a num ber of facto rs includin g the cost and convenien ce of t ransp orting h im to the co urtroom , the security risk he present s t o the co urt and publ ic , t he s ubst anti al nature of hi s cl aims , w hether resol uti on can be reason abl y

del ay ed unt il hi s rele ase, whether the pr is oner

ca n and w il l offer admis si ble , non -c umulat iv e tes ti mony that canno t be effectiv ely present ed by

depos it ion ,3

telep hon e, or som e o t h er me ans, w het her his prese nce is imp ortan t for judging his demeanor

and credi bil ity , w hether the tria l or

hear ing i s t o the co urt or a j ur y , and the probabi li ty of succ ess on t he mer it s. In the Inter est of Z .L.T ., 1 2 4 S

. W

. 3 d 1 6 3 , 1 6 5 (T e x. 2003)

. Addi ti onal ly , t he i nmate ha s t he burden t o addre ss the foreg oin g i ndi ci a w hen seek ing a be nch w ar ra nt. Id. at 16 6. If he fail s to do so, the tr ial co urt doe s n ot ab use it s dis creti on i n ei ther

deny ing the moti on for suc h a w ar ra nt or in faili ng to ru le upon i t. See Al len v. R ushi

ng, 129 S .W .3d 2 26, 2 30 (T ex. App.– T exarkana 20 04, no pe t.) (stating there
w as no rev ersi ble er ro r in not r uli n g on a req uestto appear at a hear ing on a moti on to dis mis s w hen t he req uestdi d notst ate wh a t the t est imony w oul d be and t he l it ig ant h ad faile d to ser

v e summons on the main defendant) ; Ri nger v. Ki m bal l, No. 02- 07- 407- CV , 2008 Tex . Ap p. L EX I S 9110 at*5 (Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth D ecem b e r 4 , 200 8, no pet. h.) (stating there is no abu se of discretion in de nying a ben ch w arrant when the inma te fails to meethi s b urden t o prov e hi s e nti tl ement)

. Here, Higg ins me rely

requested thata b ench warrant be issue d; he did notsupp ly any i nformati on w it h respect t o the factors t he c our t mus t c onsi der

i n g ra nti ng his req uest

. Nor di d he re q uestor

propose anyalter nati v e means of attendanc e at the hear ing su ch as by tel ephone or

depos it ion

. Gi v en th ese ci rc umstan ces and the fact th e record does not show any attemptto ser

v e the C ounty

w it h c it ati on i n the two and one- hal f y ears s inc e the li ti g ati on beg a n , we f ind no e rror on t he par

t of the tr ial co urt i n di smi ss ing for w ant o f prosec uti on. Acc ordin g ly , t he order

of dis mis sal i s a ff ir med.

Per C ur iam