### NUM BER 13-09- 0045 5-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I – E DI NBURG
M ICH A EL A NT HON Y EV A NS, A pp ellan t,

v . WA YNE T IFF IN, A pp ellee.

On a p p ea l f ro m th e 24 th D is tr ic t C o u rt of D eWit t C ou nty , T exas . 

## MEM ORA N D U M OPINION B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , B en av id es , a n d V el a M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice B en av ide s Michael An tho ny Evans, app ellant , procee ding pro se and in fo rma p aup eris, appeal s the tr ial cour

t’ s dis mis sal of his ca use of acti on as fri v olo us. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 1 4. 00 2, 14. 00 3( a) ( 2) (V er no n 20 02 ) . By a s i ng l e i s s ue , Ev an s c l ai ms the t ri al cour

t abu sed it s d is creti on i n di smi ss ing hi s c ase. W e aff ir m.T he p r i v acy gr i ev ance i s num ber ed 2 00905 6175. 1 T he r et al i at i on g r i ev ance i s num ber ed 2 00905 6966. 2 2 I. B A CKGRO UND On D ecember

2, 2008, w hil e he was inca rc er ated at t he St ev enson U nitof the T exas Departm entof

Cri min al Justice (“TDCJ”), Ev ans f iled a step one g riev ance against W ay ne Tiffin, a l aw

l ibrar y off ic er , al leg ing thatTiffin di sc los ed hi s p ersonal i nformati on to the o th e r in m a tes and made offensi v e j okes aboutrace, se x , and se x ual or ien tati on (“priv acy gr ievance”). An inv estigation resulted in insu f f icient evidence , and the griev ance 1 off ic er dete rmi ned t hat n o furt her ac ti on on the partof

TDC J w as w ar ra nted. Ev ans then f iled a step two g riev ance ; the ensu ing i nvestigation revealed no miscon ducton T if f in’s behal f, and no further

ac ti on w as tak en by

TDC J. On Dece mb er 3, 20 08, Ev ans f iled an add itiona l ste p one g riev ance against T if f in after Tiff in w ro te a dis ci pli nar y ch arg e ag ain st Ev ans for f ail ing to follo w an order to sta nd in a par ti cul ar area of the pr is on y ard (“ re tal iat ion g ri ev ance” ). I n thi s s tep o ne g ri ev ance, 2 Evans asserte d tha t he cou ld nothave v iolate d an order be c a u s e T if f in did no t actu ally is sue an order

. Ev ans arg ued that Tiff in used the word “ if,” w hic h i ndi cat ed to Ev ans that he h ad an opt ion to eithe r com ply or not com ply and tha t this did no t am oun t to an order. T h e d is c ip li n a ry c h a rg e wa s r e ve rs e d a n d d is m is s e d

. Eva n s su b s e qu e n t ly f il e d a st e p two gr ievance, w hich, in add ition to com plaint s abo ut the disciplinary action , alleged for the f irst ti me that Tiff in int enti onal ly filed the false charg e out of retal iat ion

. Ev ans re q uest ed th at T if f in be discipline d, bu t Evans’s request w as den ied as ina ppro priate , and the griev ance
w as dis mis sed. Evans sued Tif

f in und er 42 U.S.C. sec ti on 1983 and “p ursuantto sta te[ ] c ommonI n hi s pet i t i on, Ev ans a sser t ed t wo cl ai m s: ( 1) r et al i at i on, and ( 2) “ t hat he was subj ect ed t o v er bal 3 ab us e, verb al i ns ul t s an d vi ol ati on s of c on fi de nti al i t y ri gh t s of pri vac y . . . . ” F or di s c us s i on pu rpo s es , w e h ave in c lu d e d th e s e c la im s in o u r a n a lys is o f E v a n s ’s “ r e ta lia tio n g r ie v a n c e ” a n d “ p r iv a c y g r ie v a n c e ,” r e s p e c tiv e ly. 3 law and /or statu tes th at are n ot in con f lict w ith the Constitu tion and law s of Te x as.” See 42 U

. S

. C

. § 1 9 8 3

. E v a n s a l l e g e d t h a t : ( 1 ) Ti ffi n v i o l a t e d h i s r i g h t s u n d e r t h e fi rs t and fourte ent h am en dm ent s; (2) his r ights, priv ileges and im mu nities of fede ral citiz ensh ip w ere
v iol ated; and (3 ) Tiff in w as act ing under co lor of sta te law

. U. S. C onst . amend I, X IV. The

3 t r i a l c o u rt d i s mi s s e d t h e c a s e a s fr i v olo us. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN . § 14.003( a) (2 ). Thi s a ppeal ens ued. II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW W e foll owan a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n s t a n d a rd o f re v i e w t o re v i e w

“ t h e d i s mi s s a l o f a la wsui t broug ht by

an i nmate w ho has fil ed an aff ida v itor dec larati on of i nabi li ty to pay costs.” Thom as v. Kn ig ht , 52 S.W .3d 2 92, 2 94 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2001, pet. d e n i e d ) (ci ti n g Jackson v. Tex. Dep’ t of Crim inal Justice -Inst. Div. , 28 S.W .3d 8 11, 8 13 (Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2000, pet. deni ed) ; Bar numv. M unson , 998 S.W .2d 2 84, 2 86 (Tex . Ap p.–D all as 1999, pet. deni e d ); McCollumv. Mt. Ararat Bap tist Church, In c. , 980 S.W .2d 5 35, 5 36 ( Tex . App.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 1998, no p et.) ; Hickson v. Moya , 926 S.W .2d 397 , 398 (Tex. App. –W aco 1 996 , no wr it)). III . T H E R E TA LI A TI ON G RI E V A NCE Before w e ad dress Evans’s argumen t, w e mu st det ermin e, as T if f in asserts,
w hether Ev ans faile d to ex haust hi s a dmini strati v e re m e d ies reg ardin g hi s retal iat ion g ri ev ance. “[A] claim h as no arguable ba sis in law if th e in m a t e h a s f ailed to ex hau st his adm inistrative rem edie s.“ Lea chm an v. Dretke , 261 S.W .3d 297 , 3 0 4 ( T e x . App .–Fo rtT h e “ O ff e n d e r O r ie n ta tio n H a n d b o o k ,” w h ic h e x p la in s th e g r ie v a n c e p r o c e d u r e , i s n o t i n c lu d e d in 4 th e r e c o rd a n d w a s n o t p ro v i d e d to th i s C o u rt b y e i th e r p a rty. See T EX
. D EP ' T OF C R I M I N AL J US T I CE , O ff ender O rie n t a t i o n H a n d b o o k 52 (r ev. N ov. 2 0 0 4 ), avai l abl e at htt p:/ / w w w . t dc j

. s t ate. t x . us / pu bl i c ati on s / c i d/O ffen dO ri en t H bk N ov0 4.pd f ( l as t vi s i t ed Ju l y 28 , 20 10 ).
4 W orth 20 08, n o pet .) ( op. o n reh’ g ) (n oti ng t hat, w hen t ri al cour t di smi ss es cl aim as friv olo us for hav ing no b asi s i n l aw w it hout hol din g a he arin g, the app ellate court mu st deter mine w hether

the inmat e’s l aw sui t had an arg uabl e basis in l aw ). “ Sect ion 501. 008 of the [g ]ov er nment [ c]o de precl udes an i nmate fro m fili ng a c lai m unti l he has ex haust ed his reme dies through the g riev ance sy stem .” Sm it h v . T ex. D ep’ t of C ri m ina l Jus tice- Ins t. Div. , 33 S.W .3d 3 38, 3 41 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 2000, pet. deni ed) ; see T EX
. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN
. § 501. 008 ( Ver non 200 4) ; see a lsoT EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 14.0 05 (V er non 200 2)

. “The tw o- ste p ‘ Off ender Gr iev ance Prog ram ’ is the sol e s our ce of adm inistrative rem edy fo r T DCJ inm ate s.” Crain v. Prasifka , 97 S.W .3d 8 67, 8 68 & n.3 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, pet. deni ed)

. Und er the g ri ev ance prog ra m, the i nmate must pr esenthi s c omplai nt i n a s tep o ne g ri ev ance w it hin fifteen day s o f the i nci dent of
w hic h he is co mplai nin g , and he may appeal the ru li ng on h is st ep one g ri ev ance by fil ing a step tw o gr iev ance w it hin f ifteen day s f ro m the re spons e to his st ep one g ri ev ance. See id. ; see a lso W

olf v. Tex. Dep’

t of Crim inal Justice-In st. Div. , 1 8 2 S

. W

. 3 d 4 4 9 , 4 5 0 -5 1 (T e x. Ap p .– T e xark a n a 20 0 6 , p e t. de n ie d ) (ci ti n g T EX
. D EP ' T OF C R I M I N AL J US TI CE , Off ender O r i e n t a t i o n Handb ook 5 2 (r e v . N o v . 200 4), avai lab le a t http: //w w w .tdc j. st a te .t x.u s/ p u b lic a ti o n s/ cid /O f fe n d Or ie n tH b kN ov 04.pdf ( las t v is it ed J uly 28, 2010) ). An i nmate ha s e x haust ed th e remedie s o f the g ri ev ance sy ste m once he recei v es

4
a w ri tten re spons e to a s tep tw o g ri ev ance. See T EX
. G OV ’ T C OD E A NN
. § 501. 008. “I f an inmat e fail s t o ex hausthi s a dmini strati v e remedie s, w e may aff ir m a di smi ss alEv ans f i l ed st ep o ne g r i ev ance num ber 20090 61140 and st ep o ne g r i ev ance num ber 200 90618 17 5 i n an app endi x t o hi s r epl y br i ef

. He asser t s t hat t hese t wo gr i ev ances suppor t hi s cont ent i on t hat he exhaust ed h i s r et al i at i on g r i ev ance. 5 eve n i f t h e g ro u nd was not prese nte d in a mo tion to dismiss. ” R etz laf f v . T ex. D ep’ t of Crim inal Justice , 94 S.W .3d 650 , 653 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 200 2, pe t. de nied ). An i nmate mus t file b o th a s tep o ne and a s tep tw o g ri ev ance cov er ing the same i ss ue before h e has ex haust ed th e g ri ev ance procedu re
. See Wil son v. Tex

. Dep ’

t of C ri m ina l Justice-In st. Div. , 268 S.W .3d 756, 759 n.1 ( Tex . Ap p.–W aco 2008, no pet .) ( ci ti ng W olf , 182 S.W .3d a t 451 ; Riddle v. Tex. Dep ’ t of Crim inal Justice -Inst. Div. , No. 13- 05- 00054- CV , 200 6 W L 32 812 7, at*1 (Te x . App .–Corp us Christi Feb. 9, 20 06, pet. den ied) (mem . op. ));
see als o R andle v

. Woods , 299 Fed. Ap p’x 46 6, 4 67 (5th Cir

. 20 08 ) ( pe r c ur i am ) (“ Off enders a re not all ow ed to presentnew i ss ues in ste p tw o.” ). In his reply bri ef , Evans argues thathe e x hau sted his retaliation g riev ance . He directs this cou rt to tw o ad dition al step one g riev ance s, w hich are not pa rt of the trial court
re cord and w hic h ind ic ate that they w er e retur ned bec ause they w er e redundanti n l ig ht of his retal iat ion g ri ev ance. Be caus e the se document s a re not par t of the appe ll ate record, 5
w e c annot c o n sider th em. See Jam es v. State , 9 9 7 S

. W

. 2 d 8 9 8 , 9 0 1 n
. 5 (T e x. App .–B eau mo nt 19 99, no pe t.) (“An app ellate court mu st det ermin e a case on the record
as filed and can n o t co n sid er doc uments att ached as ex hib it s o r appendi ces to br iefs or
m o ti o n s. ”) (ci ti n g Mit ch is on v . Houston In dep. Sch. D is t. , 8 0 3 S

. W

. 2 d 7 6 9 , 7 7 1 (T e x. App .–Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 199 1, w rit denied )). E va n s also asserts th at th e “gr ievance code s” associate d w ith his retaliat ion griev ance indicate thathis ret a li a tion griev ance include d a r e t a li a t io n claim. He conten ds tha t the “codes w ere issued bythe griev ance inv est ig ator” and t hat t he c odes a re i ncl uded i n “ TDC J’ s G ri ev ance Operati on M anual .”6

Ev ans direct s t his C our t t o a c opy

of the d isc ip lin a ry case, w hic h he inc lud ed i n the app end ix

to his reply brief . Th e “Griev ance Ope ration Manu al,” the copy of th e disciplina ry c a s e , a n d a n e xp la n a t io n o f t h e “gr ie va n c e c o d e s ” a re n o tp a rto f t h e r e c o rd ; t h e re fo re , we canno t c onsi der

them. Id. Now her e in ste p one of Ev ans’ s retal iat ion g ri ev ance does he
arg ue th at Ti ff in filed the dis ci pli nar y case in ret ali ati on agai nstEv ans. W e concl ude t hat there is no e v ide nce in the record i ndi cat ing thatEv ans ass erted retal iat ion i n s tep o ne of his retal iat ion gr iev ance; thus , Ev ans did not ex hausthi s retal iat ion g ri ev ance, and the t ri al
cour t di d notabuse i ts dis creti on w hen i t di smi ss ed hi s retal iat ion cl aim. See Leach m an , 261 S. W .3d a t 311

. IV. T H E P R I VA C Y G RI E V A NCE Evans’s priv acy gr ievance includ ed a lle gations th at: (1) Tif f in impe rmissibly dis cl osed Ev ans’ s “ financi al document s .
. . a n d h is le gal req uestto off ic ial forms

. . . to oth er of fend ers thatw ere inside the la w library”; an d (2) T if

f in v erba lly

a buse d an d v erba lly insulte d Evans. Spe cif ically , Evans comp lained in his petition as follows: (1 ) [Tiffin] v iol ated his fiduc iar y duty by v er bal ly and phy si cal ly

di sc los ing [Ev ans’ s] financi al and rela ted p ersonal matte rs to other offenders[; ] (2 ) [Ev ans] state s thathis fin ancia l and pe rsona l informa tion th at are/w ere cont ain ed, t ru ste d [s ic ], manag ed and in the care of [Ti ff in] , i s p ro tec ted b y conf i d e n t i a l i t y b r a n c h [ s i c ] o f s t a t e - c o mm o n [ s i c ] l a w r i g h t t o p r i v a c yand TDC J’ s p oli cy [;] (3 ) [E van s] st ates thathi s c ommon st ate l aw r ig ht t o pr iv acy

has been v iol ated in the del ibe ra tel y [si c] dis cl osure of fina nci al and rela ted p ersonal infor mati on .
. . to other offenders w it hout his co nsent [;] (4) [Ev ans] state s that[Tif f in] failed to act in good faith a n d in the best int er esti n [t he] h andl ing , ma n ag ement an d tr ustof [Ev ans’ s] financi al7

infor mati on and re lat ed personne l matters[; ] (5 ) [Ev ans] st ates that[Ti ff in’ s] comments and jok es tha t co n si ste d of sex ual it y , ho m o se xua li ty and ra ci al epi thet [si c][ ,] w hic h .

. . oc cur re d ov er sev er al m o n ths, c aused [Ev ans] humi li ati on, e mbarrass ment, and ment al dis tress [;] (6 ) [Tiffin] v iol ated his fiduc iar y duty and TDC J’ s poli cy

as TDC J’ s o ff ic er

by dis cus si ng and re lat ing ( i. e., [si c] v er bal ly tel li ng ) jok es to offenders and TDC J’s employ ees that cons is ted o f sex ual ity , homos ex ual ity and ra ci al epi thet [si c][ ;] (7 ) [Ev ans] st ates thatthe v er bal abus e and ins ult s w hic h c onsi ste d of sex ual it y , h o m o sex ual it y and ra ci al epi thet [si c] pr esenta c lai m w it hin the ambitof common- sta te [ si c] law [;] [and ] (8 ) [d]ur ing the inv est ig ati on, [Tiffin] has conc eded t o [Ti ff in’ s] unprofessi onal and improp er cond uct in regards to [T if f in’s] jokes. Evans argues thatthe trial court erred bydismissing these claims as f riv olou s. “The tr ial co urt has broad di sc re ti on to di smi ss an i nm a te 's cl aim as friv olo us. ” Harrison v. Tex

. D e p ’ t of Crim inal Justice -Inst. Div. , 1 6 4 S

. W

. 3 d 8 7 1 , 8 7 4 (T e x. Ap p .– Co rp u s Ch ris ti 20 0 8 , n o p e t. ) (ci ti n g Jackson v. Tex. Dep't of Crim . Justice-In st. Div. , 28 S. W .3d 811 , 813 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 200 0, pe t. de nied )). A court m ay dism iss a claim a s f riv olou s w hen the re is slig ht chance of success, th ere is no arguab le basis in law or i n fact, t he par

ty i s c lea rl y

unabl e to prov e the facts thatsu ppor t t he c lai m, or

w hen the cl aim ar is es from the same operati v e facts as another cl aim. T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 14. 003( a) (2 ), ( b)

. E v a n s c l a i ms , i n p a rt , t h a t Ti ffi n v i o l a t e d h i s r i g h t t o p r i v a c y u n d e r the Tex as cons ti tuti on and common l aw
. See T EX
. C ON ST
. art. I, § 9 (“The p eop le shall be se cure in8

thei r persons , hou ses , pap ers a nd posses si ons, from al l unr eason abl e s eiz ur es or search es . . . .”); Bi

ll ing s v . At ki nson , 489 S.W .2d 858, 860 ( Tex . 197 3) ( re cog niz ing that under the common law “a n unw ar ra nted inv asi on of the ri g ht of pr iv acy co nst it utes a l eg al inj ur y for w hic h a remedy wil l be g ra nted” ); see a lso Reyna v. Castillo , N o. 04- 03- 00747- CV , 200 4 W L 78261 1, at *2 (Tex . App.–San Anton io Apr . 14, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op.) ( sta ti ng “ ev en i f pri soners d o retai n s ome F our th A me n d m e n t rig hts after inc ar cerati on, t he r ig ht t o pr iv acy i s, at be st, v er

y min imal ”)

. “To e st a b lis h a cl aim for invasion of

priv acy, the com plainin g party mu st prove (1) an intent iona l intrusion, p hysically or othe rw ise, up on h is so litude , seclusion , or p riv ate a f fairs o r concerns, w hich (2) w ould be h ighly

of fensive to a rea s o n a b le p e rso n.” Rey na , 200 4 W L 78261 1, at*2 (c it ing Valenz uel

a v . Aq uin o , 853 S.W .2d 5 12, 5 13 ( Tex . 199 3) ). Ev an s as s er

te d i n hi s pr i v ac y g r i ev an c e th at Ti ffin he l d up a s ta c k of Ev ans’s docu me nts, e x posin g the docu me nts to othe r inmat es prese nt at the t ime

. T if f in allegedly sta ted, “E v ans, al l of this per tai ns to y ou req uest ing and sendi ng doc uments to the c our ts. ” At a nother

ti me, Ev ans attempt ed to procure anot her doc ument fro m Tiff in that Ev ans needed to fil e w it h a c our t. Tiff in all eg edl y sai d, “[Y ]ou’ ll [s ic ] a li abi li ty to TDC J” and then commented aboutthe fili ng of f ri v olo us cl aims

. Ev ans does not d emonst ra te ho w he h as a r ig ht t o pr iv acy

i n the se docume n ts , and w e are unabl e to find s uch a pr iv acy r ig ht. Ev ans does not dis cus s how disc los ur e of

these do cument s v iol ates an i nmate’ s r ig ht t o pr iv acy , w hic h i s, at be st, “ v er y min imal .” I d. (ci ti n g Ol iv er v. Sc ott , 276 F .3d 7 36, 7 44 ( 5th Ci r. 2002) ). F or

thes e reason s, w e c oncl ude t hat E v ans had no arg uabl e basis in law or fact for his cl aims that T iffin v iol ated his common law rig ht to pr iv acy
. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 1 4

. 0 0 3 ( b ) (3 ); s e e also State v . Schei nem an , 77 S.W .3d 8 10, 8 129

(Tex . Cr im. App. 2002) ( “‘ [I] t i s a cc epted by our so ci ety that‘ [l ]os s o f f re edom of choi ce and p riva cy a re in h e re n t inc id e n ts o f co n f in e m e n t. ’”) (qu o ti n g Hud son v. Pal

m er , 468 U .S. 517, 528 ( 1984) ). Ev ans next a rgu e s that Tiff in v iol ated his “ fiduci ar y duty ” w hen Ti ff in dis cl osed pr iv ate informat ion about Ev ans. Ev ans does not pro v ide this Cour t w it h any

ci tati ons to
cas e l aw or st atute prov idi ng thatT if f in h a d a f iduci ar

y duty to Ev ans, and w e c an find
none. Thus, w e are notpersuade d by thi s a rg ument. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1( i) ; see a lso Lutz v. C oll ins , N o. 04 -0 8- 00496- CV , 200 9 W L 33095 8, at*4 (Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o F eb. 11 , 20 09 , pe t. de ni ed ) ( me m. op .) ( “ A pa rty a s s er ti ng e r ror o n ap pe al mu s t pu t for th s om e spec ificarg ument an d a n a lysis sh ow ing thatthe re cord and the l aw su ppor t hi s o r her cont enti ons. ”)

. Fi nal ly , Ev ans a rg ues that Tiff in v er bal ly abus ed and ins ult ed hi m and made obsc ene j okes and ra ci al e p it h e ts . Ev ans does not refer us to any ca se law

or st atute proh ibiting such language in a prison . Fu rther, Evans’s ent ire arg um entin his brief to this Cou rti s t hat h e i s n ot bri ng ing this clai m under secti on 1983 but under “the common l aw statu te.” See 42 U .S.C . § 1983; Bender v. Br um ley, 1 F. 3d 27 1 , 2 7 4 n.4 (5 th C ir . 199 3) (“ [A]s a r ule , ‘ mere threateni ng l ang uag e and g est ur es of a cus todi al off ic er do not, ev en if tru e , a m o u n t to a c o n st it u ti o n a l viol a ti o n .’ ”) (qu o ti n g Mc Fadden v . Luc as , 713 F .2d 1 43, 146 ( 5th C ir . 198 3) ). Ev ans’ s a rg ument ha s n o s uppor t. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.1( i) ; see also Lutz , 200 9 W L 33 095 8 at *4. T he trial cou rt did noterr by dismissing Ev ans’s privacy cl aim. W e ov er ru le Ev ans’ s s ing le is sue.10 V. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led Ev ans’ s appel lat e is sue, w e aff ir m the j udg ment of the tr ial co urt.

_____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________

__ GIN A M . BE NA

VID ES, J u s t i c e

Del iv er ed and filed the 19th day of Aug ust , 201 0.