IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-08-00317-CV

SPENCER PARKER,

Appellant

v.

J. ROSS, TDCJ ID OFFICER

Appellee

From the 12th District Court

Walker County, Texas

Trial Court No. 24,244

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Spencer Parker, a state prison inmate, sued J. Ross, a TDCJ employee, for stealing 

or losing Parker’s watch, which Parker alleged was valued at $150.00, the amount 

Parker sued for as damages. Parker filed the suit pro se and as an indigent, which 

triggered Chapter 14. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. ch. 14 (Vernon 2002). Ross 

answered and moved to dismiss Parker’s suit, alleging, among other things, that 

Parker’s suit was time-barred (by the two-year statute of limitations and by section 
Parker v. Ross Page 2

14.005(b)), that his declarations relating to previous filings1 and to grievance-system

exhaustion were deficient, and that his suit was frivolous. The trial court dismissed 

Parker’s suit as frivolous. Parker appeals.2

Subject-matter jurisdiction is essential for a court to have authority to decide a 

case. Texas Ass’n Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 443-44 (Tex. 1993). 

Subject-matter jurisdiction is never presumed, and it cannot be waived. Id. at 443. An 

appellate court may address sua sponte the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. at 

445-46. Because subject-matter jurisdiction is a question of law, our review is de novo. 

See Mayhew v. Sunnyvale, 964 S.W.2d 922, 928 (Tex. 1998).

The amount in controversy is determined by the plaintiff’s petition. Picon 

Transp., Inc. v. Pomerantz, 814 S.W.2d 489, 490 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, writ denied) 

(citing Richardson v. First Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 419 S.W.2d 836, 839 (Tex. 1967)). Parker sued 

Ross for $150.00, the alleged value of his watch. This fails to satisfy the $500 amount-incontroversy requirement for district court subject-matter jurisdiction. See Chapa v. 

Spivey, 999 S.W.2d 833, 836 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1999, no pet.); see also Le Clair v. Wood, No. 

10-04-00232-CV, 2005 WL 1303187, at *2 (Tex. App.—Waco June 1, 2005, pet. denied) 

(mem. op.). But see Acreman v. Sharp, 282 S.W.3d 251, 256 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009, 

no pet.).

 

1 With respect to a claim for damages of $200.00 or less, the Texas Constitution vests exclusive jurisdiction 

in justice of the peace courts. TEX. CONST. art. V, § 19. The record reflects that Parker first tried to file suit 

in justice court in Houston County but the justice court would not “accept” his case. The record does not 

reflect whether Parker sought review of the justice court’s action.

2 Parker’s brief is inadequate in numerous respects. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. Under Rule 2, we will 

suspend Rule 38.1’s requirements and will address his appeal to expedite its disposition. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 2.
Parker v. Ross Page 3

Because the amount sought by Parker was less than $500, the trial court did not 

have jurisdiction to decide the case. See TEX. CONST. art. V, § 19 (for civil matters where 

amount in controversy is $200.00 or less, justice courts have exclusive jurisdiction); Le 

Clair, 2005 WL 1303187, at *2; Chapa, 999 S.W.2d at 836. The trial court should have 

dismissed Parker’s suit for want of jurisdiction without addressing whether his claim 

was frivolous under Chapter 14. Le Clair, 2005 WL 1303187, at *2; Wilkerson v. T.D.C.J.-

I.D., 2004 WL 3021261 at *2 (Tex. App.—Tyler Dec. 30, 2004, no pet.).

Our jurisdiction of the merits of an appeal extends no further than that of the 

trial court from which the appeal is taken. Le Clair, 2005 WL 1303187, at *2; Ward v. 

Malone, 115 S.W.3d 267, 269 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, pet. denied); Dallas 

County Appraisal Dist. v. Funds Recovery, Inc., 887 S.W.2d 465, 468 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

1994, writ denied). Because the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, we do not 

address the merits of Parker’s appeal. Le Clair, 2005 WL 1303187, at *2; Wilkerson, 2004 

WL 3021261, at *2. Instead, we vacate the trial court’s dismissal order and dismiss the 

case for want of jurisdiction. See Le Clair, 2005 WL 1303187, at *2; Wilkerson, 2004 WL 

3021261, at *2; TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(e).

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Reyna, and 

Justice Davis

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed September 15, 2010

[CV06]