IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER, TEXAS

No. 12-1400016-CV FILEDINCOURTOFAPPEALS 12thCourtofAppealsDistrict

CATHYS. LUS JUAN ENRIQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,

RICK THALER, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.
On Appeal From the 3rd District Court, Anderson County, Texas, Trial Court No. 3-41887 Honorable Pam Foster Fletcher, Judge Presiding

APPELLANT'S PLEA TO JURISDICTION 

### TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: 

## JuanEnriquez, Appellant, hereinfileshispleatothe jurisdiction of this Court to hear this appeal under its present posture, averring as grounds the following:
I. NO FINAL JUDGMENT BEFORE THE COURT The Court does not have a final judgment which concludes all of the claims raised by Appellant. On December 11, 2013, based on Appellant's funds in his inmate trust account on February 7, 2012, the court below entered an Order of Dismissal in which the court ordered the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to withdraw money from Appellant's trust account equal to the lesser of "1) 20 percent of the preceding six months deposits to the inmate's trust account

### or 2) the total amount of court fees and costs charged to the inmate in this cause". (ROA 133). On December 20, 2013, the Appellant filed his Petitioner's 

### Motion to Vacate Judgment, contesting, inter alia, the withdrawal 

### order because "[p]ayments must be based onthe amount placed in the trust fund 6 months prior to February7, 2012, [the date of 

### the indigencyaffidavit] not sixmonths prior to the payment order. " (ROA 139). 

### On April 8, 2014, the Anderson County District Clerk, presented the costs of this case. (ROA 141-142). 

## The record reflects that notice of appeal was filedprior to the court having acted on themotion tovacate judgment and that the Anderson District Clerk did not enter costs into the record until long after notice of appeal was filed. 

### It is apparent from the record that the Order of Dismissal entered onDecember 11, 2013, does not dispose ofall claims 

## presnted to the trial court and/or raised onappeal.

II. PROCESS DUE NOT GIVEN 

### With respect towithdrawal orders, the court in Webb v. State, 324 S.W.3d 229 (Tex.App.
-Amarillo 2010), set forth the process due when such orders are entered: 

## Inreversing this Court andrendering judgmentaffirming the trial court's order denyingHarrel'smotion to 

### recind, the Supreme Court held that due process entitles 

## an inmate toreceivenoticeandanopportunitytobeheard, even though those requirments might be accorded the inmate 

## after funds arewithdrawn. Harrell, 286 S.W.3dat 321. It 

## concludedthatbecauseHarrellhadreceivednotice (acopy of thewithdrawal notification) andanopportunitytobe heard (themotion to rescind), he had receivedall thedue process required.On the limited record before this court, we are unable to determine if Webb has been given all that due process requires. Specifically, we are unable to determine whether Webb has been (1) provided the necessary underlying documentation, and (2 afforded an adequate opportunity 

### "to compare the amounts assessed by the trial dourt [in the underlying criminal proceedings] to the amount[s] withdrawn and alert the court to any alleged errors." See id. In that respect, we note that the, "risk of an erroneous deprivationof [Webb's] interest through the procedures used" in this particular case is apparent on the face of the record. Webb, at 232. Here, the district court gave notice of its withdrawal order via its Order of Dismissal. Also, Appellant was provided -afWgans to challenge the order via a motion to vacate judgment. However, the documentation of costs was not provided to Appellant until after notice of appeal was filed, so he could not alert the
court to the variance between what the statute allowed to be withdrawn from his trust account and what was withdrawn. Thus, the record reflects "risk of an erroneous deprivation of
A 

### Appellant's interest through the procedure used by the lower court to obtain money from the Appellant's prison trust fund
account.
III. NOTICE OF APPEAL PREMATURE Because the trial court has not entered an appealable 

### order granting or denying the motion to vacate judgment wherein the court could have confirmed, modified, corrected, or rescinded the prison withdrawal notification, the Notice of Appeal inthis case was premature.WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant moves the Court to abate this appeal and to direct the lower court, after evidentiary hearing to develop the record, to clarify its Order of Dismissal pursuant to which funds were withdrawn from Appellant's prison account without the process due to Appellant. Respectfully submitted,

Enriqi><z T27122 TDCJ-Michael 2664 FM 2054 Tennessee Colony, TX 751
Certificate of Service 

### I, Juan Enriqeuz, certify that a correct copy of the foregoing plea to jurisdiction was served byplacing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, on April 30, 2015, addressed to Briana M. Webb, Assistant Attorney General, P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station, Austin, TX 78711.

Mailbox Filing Verification 

### I, Juan Enriquez, declare under penalty ofperjury, that the 

## foregoingAppellant's Plea toJurisdicitonwas filedonApril 30, 

## 2015, byplacing same inthe Institutional Mail System, postage prepaid, first class mail, addressed to CathyS. Lusk, Clerk, Twelfth Court of Appeals, 1517 West Front Street, Suite 354, Tyler, TX75702. Executed onApril 30, 2015.