i i i i i i



### OPIN ION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 58 2- CV J e r r y WA NZ ER , Appellant
v . Be rnar d GAR CI A , Debr a Ve ra, H ug h W. Green, Thoma s Hinkle, Sy lvia Peterson, Victor Mar

tinez, Anthony

Gar cia, Kur

t Sti efe r, Ke nneth B rig ht, Paul Morales, and K elli Ward, Appellee s Fr om the 81st J udicial District Court, Kar nes County , Texas Trial Court No. 07-09-00132- CVK Honora ble Ron Carr, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Kar en Ang elini, J ustice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J uly 1, 2009 AFF I RMED J err y Wanzer, an inmate inca rce rate d at the Connally

Unit of the Texas Depa rtment of Criminal J ustice, appe als pro se f rom the trial cour

t’s order dismiss ing his law suit ag ainst appellee s
and de c lari nghim

a ve xati ou s li tig ant. We a ff ir m.04
- 08
- 00 58 2- CV

- 2- B ACKG ROUND Wanzer filed suit pursuant to 4 2 U. S
. C . § 1983 ag ainst Appellee s Be rnar d Gar cia, De bra Ver a, Hug h Gre en, Thomas Hinkle, Sy lvia Peterson, Victor Martinez, Anthony

Gar cia, Kur

t Sti efe r, Kenne th Brig ht, Paul Morales, and Kelli Ward, in their individual and offic ial capa cities, for a lleg ed violations of his civil rights. In his petition, W anzer a lleg es that on April 18, 2007, d u ri n g a law library session, he aske d L aw L ibrary Supervisor B erna

rd Ga rcia if he c ould use the re stroom, but
wa s to ld h e c ou ld n ot. Af

te r sittin g do wn , Wa

nze r a g a in a sk e d G arc ia

if he c ou ld g o to the re str oo m. Gar cia told him tha t he would have to sign out. Wanzer aske d if his law library session would be
ov e r whe n h e sig ne d o ut a nd wa s to ld t

hat he c ou ld “ put in ” fo r a no ther sess ion . A c c or din g to Wanzer’s petition, he explained to Garc ia that he just wante d to go to the restroom and then continue with his session. Gar cia replied t hat he could not do that. Wanzer said, “So y ou’re ref using me from g oing to the restroom? ” He then told Ga rcia he would file a g rieva nce. G arc ia re sponded by telling Wan zer to g e t up and

le ave , to wh ic h Wanze r re pli e d, “ Ar e y ou re fu sin g my se ssi on ? ” Ga rc ia a g a in told W anzer to leave, so Wanzer sig ned out and plac ed by his name “r efuse d my

law librar

y .” I n his petition, Wanzer then allege s that when he returne d to the building, he separ ately spoke to Shift S e c u r it

y L t. A n th o n y

G ar c ia , L aw L ib r ar

y O f f ic e r G r e e n , an d

Se c u r it y D e s k Sg t. Victor Martinez about his session being ended f or re questing to use the re stroom. Accor ding to Wanzer’s petition, three hours later, Sg t. Victor Mar t inez told W anzer that he was investig ating “a disciplinary ” and that Wanz er ha d been “ written up for cre ating a disturbance and re fusing to obey order s by L aw L ibrary Supervisor Gar cia.” Wanzer alleg es that he told Martinez the alleg ation was false a nd that Garci a wa s ang ry at him beca

use he ha d told Garc ia that he wa s g oing to f ile a g rieva nce.04
- 08
- 00 58 2- CV

1 ... F ro m the re c o rd b e fo re us , w e a re un a b le to d e te rm ine the m e a n ing o f t h e ter m “lay.”

- 3- Acc ording to Wanz er’ s petition, the nex t day , he went to the law library , “plac ed [his] lay 1 in the lay in-box ,” and sat down. When the line of people waiting to sign in d ec re as ed , Wanzer
a tte mpt e d to sig n in

the log , but ha d to ask Of fi c e r De br a Ve ra fo r the logbe c a us e sh e ha d ta

ke n it
. Ver a told Wanzer that he should have sig ned in bef ore sitting down. Wanzer told Ve ra that he had “not want[ ed] to stand there, so [he had] waited until the line we nt down to sign in.” Wanzer then signe d in and bega

n doing his “leg al work.” Hours later, Desk Sg t. Martinez told W anzer that Ve ra had wr itten him up for failing to obey order s to put his l ay

in the in-box . Wanzer told Martinez that Ver a had written him up in retaliation for him filing past g rieva nces a g ainst her a

nd the library
. Wanzer’s petition further alleg es t hat t he following day , a disciplinary hear ing w as held by Ca p ta in T h o ma s H ink le , an d Wanz e r r e qu e s te d

to qu e s ti o n“ O f

f ic e r s G r e e n , V e r a , Sg t. M arti n e z, A. Ga rc ia , B
. Garci a, alo ngwi th i nma te s A lle n a

nd Simm on s. ” Ca

pta in H ink le a llo we d h im t o question L aw L ibrary

Supervisor Ga

rcia , but d enied his re quest to question the others. F urther, Wanzer alleg es in his petition that Hinkle onl y allowed him to question Gar cia over t he phone, which Wanzer believes denies him his right to confr ontation. Hinkle then ca lled L aw L ibrary Offic er V era , who claimed no know ledg e of the incident. Wanze r al l ege s that Hinkle ref used to rea d Offic er Gre en’s s t at em en t at the disciplinary hear ing or

show Wanzer what the state ment said. Wanzer explained to Hinkle that H inkle had conspired with Garc ia in the writing of the disciplinary . Wanzer alleg es that whe n he lef

t the library

on April 18, 200 7 , o ne of his witnesses sa w L aw L ibrary Supervisor Ga

rcia leave the law libra

ry with a disciplinary

form in hand a

nd then speak with Hinkle, which W anzer alleg es is in violation of Disciplinary Policy . Acc ording to Wanz er’ s petition, when he objected to H inkle conducting the disciplinary hear ing be cause of his conflict of inter est (Wanzer04
- 08
- 00 58 2- CV

- 4- had name d Hin k l e as a de fenda nt in another c ivil lawsuit), Hinkle refuse d to rec use himself and f o u n d W an z e r g u i l t y. Wanzer’s petition then alleg es that four day s later, April 23, 2007, while returning from a law lib ra ry se ssi on , M a

jor Kurt Stie fe r follow e d Wanze r t o h is c e ll a nd or de re d O ff

ic e r R od ri g ue z to
sear ch his ce ll. Five hours late r, Wanzer was told to go to a “Unit Classification Hea ring ,” whe re “Classification He aringMember Ma jor Stiefer or dere d [W anzer] to be sent to ‘close c ustody ,’” wh ic h p re ve nts pr iso ne rs fr om a tte nd inglaw l ibr ary

se ssi on s. Acco rd i n g t o W an z er ’s p et i t i o n , s i x d ay s l at er , L t . An t h o n y Ga rc i a h el d

a d i s ci p linary

hearing fo r Wa nze r a lle g e dly

fa ili ngto o be y

an o rd e r t o put his lay in the in- bo x. Wan zer e xpla ine d to L t. Gar cia that the disc iplinary was fa lse bec ause he had plac ed his lay in t h e b o x an d t h at Vera ha d written him up “out of re taliation.” Gar cia found that Wanzer had failed to c omply with the order
. Wan zer ’s fi rs t c a

us e of a c tio n a lle g e s th a t L aw L ibr ary Sup e rv iso r Ga rc ia de nie d him a c c e ss to the courts in re taliation for Wanzer filinga g rieva nce a g ainst him. Accordingto Wanz er’ s petition, Gar cia r efuse d to give him a copy of his Trust Fund A ccount Statement, whic h he nee ded to send to the U. S
. Di s trict Court, Western District of Te x as, in Cause No. SA-CA- 0616-RF a nd which
c a us e d h is f e de ra l c a se to be dis mis se d. Wan zer a lso a lle g e s that he wa s de nie d a c c e ss to t he c ourt s be c aus e Ga

rc ia g ave him min ima l amou

nts of ind ig e nt l e g a l su

pp lie s and

re fu se d to pr ov ide him with leg al re sear ch mater ials. Wan zer ’s se c on d c a

us e of a c tio n a lle g e s th a t Mo ra le s d e nie d h im h is c on sti tu tio na l r ig hts under the First, F ifth, Eighth, a nd Four teenth Amendme nts by

acting“with deliber ate indiffe renc e tow ard fo rm a l g ri e va

nc e s su bmi tte d b y

[Wan zer ]” and by actin g “ wi th d e lib e ra te ind if fe re nc e in wrong fully

disreg ardingletters, sent dated August 21, 2006, and May 11, 2007, of re solution.”04
- 08
- 00 58 2- CV

- 5- Wan zer ’s thi rd

c a us e of a c tio n a lle g e s th a t K e nn e th B ri g ht d e pr ive d Wa nze r o f h is
c on sti tut ion a l r ig hts un de r t he F ir st, F if

th, Ei g hth , a

nd Fou rt eenth A me ndme nts by a c tin g “ wi th deliberate indiffer ence toward f ormal g rieva

nces submitted by

Wanzer.” Wanzer’s fourth c ause of

action alleg es that De bra V era , Hug h Gre en, Thomas Hinkle, K urt Stiefer, Sylvia Peterson, Victor Martinez, and Anthony Gar cia “all conspired to de prive [Wanz er] of hi s rig hts established by the Fir st, Fifth, Eig hth, and Four teenth Amendme nts to the United States Constit ution, as well as ac ted with deliberate indiffer ence toward [Wan z er ] i n t h e re solution of g rieva nce c omplaints.” Wanzer’s fifth ca

use of a ction alleg es that Kelli Ward deprive d Wanzer of his constitutional ri g hts under

the F ir st, F if

th, Ei g hth , a

nd F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nts by

a c tin g “ wi th d e lib e rate indiffer ence in failing to rec tify discrepa ncies of which she wa s awa re a nd responsible for

betwee n protocol and pr actice s within TDCJ -I D Grie vance Process.” Ap pe lle e s f

ile d a mot ion to de c lare Wan zer a s a ve xati ou s lit ig ant a nd a mot ion to d ism iss Wanzer’s lawsuit pursuant to c hapter 14 of the Civil Practice s and Remedie s Code. On Fe bruar y 8, 20 08 , th e tr ia l c ourt

he ld a he ari ngon

the mot ion s. Wan zer

wa s p re se nt at th e he ari ng . T hat sa me da y , th e tr ia l c ourt

sig ne d a n o rd e r f ind ingWan zer

to b e a ve xati ou s li tig ant a

nd ord eri nghim

to furni s h s e c u r it

y in th e amo u n t o f $ 2 , 0 0 0
. T h e o r d e r s tate d th a t if Wa n ze r f a il e d to furnish the
secur ity , the ca se would be dismissed. The or der a lso stated th at i f t h e case was dismissed on the merits, Wanzer would have to pay the defe ndants’ rea sonable expenses incurre d in or in connec tion with the litigation, including c osts and attorney s’ fe es. The or der f urther stated that the cle rk of the court should re fuse the f

iling of a ny litigation pre sented by

Wanzer unless he first obtained an orde r from the loca l administrative judge permitting the filing. O n Marc h 4, 2008, the t rial cour t gr anted04
- 08
- 00 58 2- CV

- 6- a pp e lle e s’ mot ion

to d ism iss purs ua

nt t o ch a pte r 1 4 a nd dis mis se d Wanze r’ s c a se a s f ri vo lou s. Wan zer a pp e a ls the dis mis sa l of

his laws uit

purs ua nt t o c hapte r 1 4 a

nd the fi nd ingthat he is a
ve xati ou s li tig ant. M OT I ON T O D ECLA R E W ANZ E R A V EX A TIO U S L I T I GANT A. Timeliness of Motion Wanzer argues that Appe llees did not timely file their moti o n to declar e him a vexatious litigant bec ause the y

did not file their motion within ni netee n day s after filing the ir answe r. Section 11 .0 51 of the Civ il Pr a c tic e and

Re me die s Co de , h owe ver, allo ws a de fe nd ant t o f

ile a mot ion to decla re a plaintiff a ve x atious liti g ant within nin e ty da y s o f f ili ngan a ns we r: I n a lit ig a tio n in

thi s st a te , th e de fe nd ant m ay , o n o r b e fo re the 90 th day a ft e r t he date the def endant f iles the orig inal answe r or make s a spec ial appea ranc e, move the cour

t for a n order : (1) dete rmining that the plaintiff i s a vex atious litigant; and (2) re quiring t h e p l a i n t i f

f t o f u r n i s hs e c u r i t y. T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 11.051 (Ve rnon 2002). B oth pa rt ie s a g re e that a

pp e lle e s fi le d th e ir

ans we r o n O c tob e r 1 5, 20 07 , a nd the ir mot ion to d e c l ar e W an z e r

a s a v e x a t i o u s l i t i g an to nJ anu ar y 1 4 , 2 0 0 8
. A l t h o u g ht h e r e ar e n i n e t y- o n e d ays betwee n October

15, 2007, and January

14, 2008, the motion was still t imely filed bec ause the nin e tie th day a ft e r Oc tob e r 15, 20 07 , w a s Sunday , J anuar y 13, 2008. Texas Rule of Civil Procedur e 4 provides that if a deadline falls on a Saturday , Sunday , or leg al holiday , the dea dline is ex tended to the next day

that i s n o t a S at urday , Sunday , or leg al holiday
. SeeT EX . R. C IV . P. 4 . T hu s, appellee s’ motion was timely filed.04
- 08
- 00 58 2- CV

- 7- B. Re as on ab le Pr ob ab ili ty tha t W an ze r W ou ld Pre v ail S ec t i o n1 1
. 0 5 4 o f t h e T ex as C i v i l P ra ct i ce s an d R em ed i es C o d e p ro v i d es t h e f o l l o wi n g: A co ur t may fi nd a pla int if

f a ve xati ou s litig ant if the de fe nd ant sho ws that the re is not a re asonable probability that the plaintiff will preva il in the litigation ag ainst the de fe nd ant a

nd that: (1) the plaintiff, in the seven- y ear period immediately

prec edingthe date the de fendant makes the motion under se ction 11.051, has commence d, prosec ute d , o r ma in ta ined in propria pe rsona at least five litigations other than in a

small claims court that have been: (A) f inally deter mined adver sely

to the plaintiff; (B ) per mitted to remain pe nding a t least two y ear s without having be en broug ht to trial or hear ing; or (C) dete rmined by

a trial or a

ppellate c ourt to be frivolous or g roundless under state or fede ral laws or rules of pr ocedur e; . . . . T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 11.054(1) ( Ver non 2002). We revie w the trial c ourt’s deter mination that W anzer is a vexatious l itigant f or abuse of discre tion. Douglas v. Am. Title Co. , 19 6 S.W. 3d 87 6, 87 9 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1st Di st. ] 20 06 , n o pe t.) ; Nell Nati ons Forist v. Va ngua rd Un de rwr ite rs I

ns . , 141 S.W .3d 668, 670 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, no pet.). On a pp e a l, Wan zer ha s only c ha lle ng e d the tr ia l cou rt ’s c on c lus ion that he ha s n o r e a so na ble probability

of pre vailing in his suit ag ainst appellee s. Thus, we limit our discussion to whether the trial court a

bused its discretion in making this determination. Wan zer ’s fi rs t c a

us e of a c tio n a lle g e s that L aw L ibr ary Sup e rv iso r G arc ia

de nie d h im a c c e ss to the courts in r etaliation for Wanzer filinga g rieva nce a g ainst him. However , to establish the denial of his rig ht to acce ss the courts, Wanzer must show actua l harm re sulting from the prison offic ial’s alleg ed conduc t. See Lewis v. Casey , 51 8 U .S. 34 3, 34 9- 52 (1 99 6) ; Ne wby v . Ch am be rs , No. 14-08-04
- 08
- 00 58 2- CV

2 ... T h e rig h t o f i n m a te s to a c c e ss c o u rts e n c o m p a sse s o n ly a r e a so n a b ly ad e q u a te o p p o rtu n ity to fi le n o n frivo lo u s le g a l c la im s c h a llen g ing th e ir c o n v ic tio n s o r c o n d iti o n s o f co n fine m e n t. L e w is , 51 8 U
. S. at 35 1. I nmat es ar e “ n ot g u ar an t ee [ d] t h e wh er ew i t h al t o t r an s f or m t h ems el v es i n t o l i t i g at i n g e n g i n es c apa bl e of f i l i n g e v er y t h i n g f

r om s har ehol der deri vati ve a cti o ns t o s l i p- and- f al l cl ai ms. ” I

d. a t 3 5 5 . In ste a d , t h e y a re gu a ra n te e d “the c o n fer ra l o f a cap ab i l i t y - t he cap ab i l i t y of b ri ngi ng co nt em p l a te d chal l enges t o s ent ences or co nd i t i o ns o f co nf i nem ent be f

o re t he cour t s . ” I

d.

- 8- 00338-CV, 2009 WL1416078, at *2 (Te x . App.—Houston [14th Dis t.] 2009, no pet. h.). Actual harm is some hindranc e to a n inmate’s eff

ort to pur sue a leg al claim. Newby , 2009 WL 1416078, at *2 n.8; se e Le wis , 5 18 U. S. at 35 6 ( e xpla ini ngthat th e c on sti tut ion a l r ig ht t o a c c e ss c ourt s “guara ntees no pa

rticular me thodology

but rather

the conf err al of a capa bility – the ca pability of bring ing c ontemplated cha lleng es to sentenc es or c onditions of co n fi nement bef ore the courts”)
. 2 W an zer alleg es in his petition that Garcia ref used to g ive him a copy

of his Trust Fund Ac c ount S tate me nt, wh ic h h e ne e de d to se nd to t he U. S. D istri c t Co ur

t, We ste rn

Di str ic t of

Te xas, in Cause No. SA-CA-0616- RF. Wanzer alleg es that as a re s ult, his federa l case was dismissed. Ho we ve r, a

pp e lle e s atta c he d to the ir

mot ion the op ini on and

or de r f ro m th e fe de ra l di str ic t c ourt in Cause No. SA-CA- 0616-RF, whic h dismiss ed Wanzer’s c ase as frivolous and barred Wanzer f rom proce edingin forma pa

uperis in a c ivil action or in an appeal of a judgment rendere d in a civil action filed in fede ral c ourt. The f eder al district court’s opinion states that Wanzer’s fede ral c ase w as not dism i s s ed b ec ause he failed to f ile his Trust Fund Ac count Statement, but beca use the trial c ourt deter mined his c ase to be frivolous. Thus, Wanzer has not identified any injury cause d by

Gar cia’ s alleg ed fa ilure to provide him with his Trust Fund Ac count Statement. S ee N ewby , 2 0 0 9 WL 1416078, at *3. Simil arly , Wanzer has not identified any injury cause d by

Gar cia’ s alleg ed fa ilure to provide him leg al supplies. Wan zer ’s seco nd , th ir d, and fo ur th c a us e s o f a c tio n a lle g e that he wa s d e nie d h is constitutional rights under the Fir st, Fifth, Eig hth, and Four teenth Amendme nts by

various prison04
- 08
- 00 58 2- CV

- 9- officia ls be cause these officia ls a cted with “deliber ate indiffe renc e” towa rd g rieva nces submitted by him . Si mil arl y , Wanze r’ s f if th c a us e of a c tio n a ll eges th at K e lli War d d e pr ive d h im o f h is
c on sti tut io nal ri g hts un de r t he F ir st, F if

th, Ei g hth , a

nd F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nts by

a c tin g “ wi th deliberate indiffer ence in failing to rec tify discrepa ncies of which she wa s awa re a nd responsible for betwee n protocol and pr actice s within TDCJ -I D Grie vance Process.” L ike hi s first cause of ac tion, Wan zer ha s n ot i de nti fi e d a

ny inj ur y c aus ed by

the se pr iso n o ff

ic ia ls a c tin g wi th d e lib e rate indiffer ence with respec t to the gr ievanc e proc ess. See Ne wby v. Hurley , No. 13-08-00016- CV, 2008 WL 3868338, at *2 (Te x . App.—Corpus Christi 2008, no pet.). Moreove r, an inmate doe s not have a constitutionally

protec ted rig ht to acce ss a g rieva nce pr ocedur e. Newby , 2009 WL 1416078, at *3; see also Adams v . Rice , 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994) (“[T]he Consti tution creates no entitlement to gri e va nc e pr oc e du

re s o r ac c e ss to any

su c h p ro c e dure vo luntari ly e sta bli sh e d b y

a state .” ); Buck

ley v. Barlow , 9 97 F .2 d 49 4, 49 5 (8 th Cir
. 19 93 ) (h old ingthat be c a us e a pr iso n gri e va

nc e pr oc e dure is a pro ce d u ra l ri ght that does not confe r any substantive rig hts upon inmates, it does not create a pr ote c te d li be rt

y int e re st i mpl ic a tin g the pr ote c tio ns o f t h e F o u r t e e nt h Am e ndme nt) ; Mann v. Adam s , 855 F.2d 639, 640 ( 9th Cir. 1988) (holding that inmates d o not have a “leg itimate claim of entitlement to a g rieva

nce pr ocedur e”) . Nor doe s an inmate have a c onstitut ional ri gh t in having g rieva nces r esolved to his satisfac tion. Ge ige r v . J owe rs , 4 0 4 F.3d 371, 374 ( 5th Cir. 2005) (explaining that district cour t did not err in dismissi ng inmate’s cla im as frivolous beca use a prisoner ha s a lib e rt y int e re st o nly

in f re e do ms f ro m r e str a int

that im po se a ty pic a l and sig nif ic ant hard sh ip
on the in mate in r e latio n to the or din ary inc ide nts of

pr iso n li fe , a

nd do e s n ot h ave a

fe de ra lly protec ted liberty

interest in having these g rieva nces r esolved to his satisfac tion). There fore , we f ind04
- 08
- 00 58 2- CV

- 10- no a bu se of dis c re tio n o n th e pa

rt of the tr ia l c ourt

in d e te rm ini ng th at W anz er had no re a so na ble pr ob a bil ity of pr e va ili ngin h is l aws uit
.

D I SM I SS A L U NDE R C HAP T E R 14 Wanzer also argues t hat t he trial court e rre d in dismi ssing his lawsuit as fr ivolous pursuant to chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice s and Remedies Code. Section 14.003 allows a trial c ourt to dismiss a cla im filed by an indig ent inmate, either befor e or a fter se rvice of proc ess, if the c ourt finds that the claim is frivolous or malicious. T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 14.003 (Ve rnon 2002). I n deter

mining whether the claim i s frivolous or m alicious, the court may consider whether (1 ) the c la im’ s re a lis tic c ha nc e of ult imate su c c e ss is slig ht; (2 ) the c la im h a s n o a rgua ble ba sis in law o r i n f

a c t; ( 3) it i s c le ar t

hat th e pa rt y c ann ot p ro ve fa c ts in su

pp or t of the c la im; or

(4 ) t he c la im is s ub sta nti a lly sim ila r to a pre vio us c la im fil e d by the inm a te be c a us e the c la im a

ri se s f ro m th e same operative fac ts. Id. § 1 4. 00 3( b) (4 ). We r e vie w t he tr ia l c ou rt ’s dis mis sa l of a c la im p ur su ant t o chapte r 14 for

abuse of discretion. Smith v. Tex. De p’t of Criminal Justice , 3 3 S. W. 3 d 3 3 8 , 3 3 9 ( T e x. App.—Texarkana

2000, pet. denied)
. For the same r easons a s enunciated above , we find no abuse of discretion by the trial cour t in d ism iss ingWan zer ’s c la ims a s f ri vo lou s. C ONCL US I ON We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt .

Kar en Ang elini, J ustice