### NUM BER 13-07- 0071 8-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 C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G
M ICH A EL SC OTT , A pp ellan t,
v . TEXAS DEPA RTM ENT OF CRIM INA L JU ST ICE- INST ITU TION A L DIVISION , ETA L., A pp ellees . On ap pe al f rom th e 3 6th D istrict Co urt of B ee Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza Appel lan t, Mi chael Scott, is cur re ntl y incarcerated at the Mi chael Unitof the Tex as Depa rtme nt of

Cri min al Justice-In stitutio nal Div ision locat ed in T enn essee Colony, Texas. App earing pro se, Sco tt ap pea ls from the trial court’s Au gust 31, 20 07 o rder dismissing his cl aims w it hout pr eju dic e i n fav or o f a p p e llees , Se nai da Ambr iz , J oe M arti nez , Pe ter Shaefer, and the Tex a s De p a rt m ent o f Cr imi nal Ju sti ce (c oll ect iv ely “ TDC J” ). By

oneB a s e d o n th e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s , it is n o t c le a r a s to w h e n S c o tt w a s tr a n s f e r r e d f r o m th e M c C o n n e ll 1 U ni t t o t he M i chael U ni t i n t he T exas Depar t m ent of C r i m i nal Just i ce sy st em
. The pr es en t l aw su i t wa s as si gn ed t r i al c ou r t c au se n um be r B- 05
- 13 08
- C V- A. 2 In tri a l c o u rt c a u s e n u m b e r B -0 5 -1 2 2 1 -C V -A , S c o tt fil e d s u i t a g a i n s t e s s e n ti a l l y th e s a m e d e fe n d a n ts 3 f or den i al of

access t o t he co ur t s. T he cl ai m s i n cause num ber B- 05- 1221- C V- A appea r t o ar i se out oft he sam e set of

f act s as t hose i n t he p r esent case. I n fac t , i n hi s han dwr i t t en l i st i ng o fpr ev i ous l awsui t s as r e q u ir e d b y s e c tio n 1 4 .0 0 4 o fth e c iv il p r a c tic e a n d r e m e d ie s c o d e , S c o tt ’s d e s c r ip tio n o f th e c la im s a n d tim e p e rio d s i n v o l v e d i n b o th l a w s u i ts a re s u b s ta n ti a l l y s i m i l a r. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 14

. 004 ( Ver no n 20 02 )

. H ow ev er , t he r ec or d do es no t i nd i ca t e t ha t t he t r i al co ur t , i n ca us e nu m be r B- 05
- 12 21
- C V- A, c o n c l u d e d th a t S c o tt w a s a ve x a ti o u s l i ti g a n t. 2 is sue, Sc ott cont ends that the t ri al cour t abu sed it s d is creti on in dis mis si ng his cl aims for h is f a i l u re to pro vide se cu rit y fo r co u rtco st s. W e reve rse an d rem a n d fo r pr o ce e d in gs
cons is tent w it h thi s o pin ion

. I. F A CT UA L A ND P ROC EDURA L B A CKGRO UND On Jul y 11, 2005, Scot t, proceed ing pro s e and in form a pa upe ris , fil ed hi s o ri g ina l peti ti on again st va rio us TDC J o ff ic ial s for deni al of acce ss to the c our ts, al leg ing that betw een M ar ch 15, 2 005 and Apr il 4, 2005, sev er al TDC J o ff ic ial s i ntent ion all y and
ma liciously failed to deliver certain legal books to him in his adm inistrative segregation cell at t he M cC onnel l Uni t. Scot t f urther alle g ed that he w as unabl e to meet a fili ng deadl ine 1 in a n o t h e r l a w s u i t h e fi l e d i n t h e 3 0 t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u rt o f W i c h i t a C o unty , Tex as becau se of the fail ur e of T DC J off ic ial s to deli v er cert ain leg al book s t o hi m w hil e he w as in his ce ll

. TDCJ f il ed its ori g ina l answ er and re q uestfor

a jur y tr ial on O cto ber

3, 2005, 2 assertin g sovereig n im m u n it y and conte ndin g tha t Scotthad failed to ex hau st all of his adm inistrative rem edie s. On N ov ember

6, 2006, TDC J fil ed a moti on to dismi ss Scott’ s cl aims , as ser ti ng that t h e la wsu itwa s d e ri ve d f ro m t h e sa m e se to f fa c t s a s a p re vio u s ly f il e d la wsu it

— n a m e ly, tr ial co urt c ause number B- 05- 1221- CV -A —and re q uest ed th at t he l aw sui t be dis mis sed 3S e c tio n 1 4 .0 0 3 o fth e c iv il p r a c tic e a n d r e m e d ie s c o d e p r o v id e s t h a t a t r ia l c o u r t m a y d is m is s a c la im 4 t hat i s f r i v ol ous or m al i ci ous, and, i n de t er m i ni ng whet her t he cl ai m i s f r i v ol ous o r m al i ci ous, t he t r i al cour t m ay c o n s i d e r, a m o n g o th e r th i n g s , w h e th e r “th e c l a i m i s s u b s ta n ti a l l y s i m i l a r t o a p re v i o u s c l a i m fi l e d b y th e i n m a te be c au s e t he cl ai m ari s es fr om t he sa m e o pe rat i ve fa c t s
. ” I d. § 1 4.00 3(a )( 2), (b)( 4) (V ern on 20 02 ).

T D C J n o te d th a t, b a s e d o n S c o tt ’s h a n d w r itt e n lis t, h e h a s f ile d a t le a s t f o r ty- e ig h t la w s u its w h ile 5 i ncar cer at ed a nd t he m aj or i t y of t he l awsui t s hav e be en v ol unt ar i l y di sm i ssed o r di sm i ssed a s f r i v ol ous. T h e re c o rd d o e s n o t i n c l u d e a m o ti o n b y T D C J re q u e s ti n g th a t th e tri a l c o u rt d e te rm i n e th a t S c o tt 6 i s a ve x a ti o u s l i ti g a n t o r re q u i rin g S c o tt to fu rn i s h s e c u rit y . See i d. § 1 1.05 1 (V ern on 20 02 ). 3 as f riv olou s. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 14. 003( b) (4 ) (V er non 200 2)

. On

4 N ov em be r

8 , 200 6, TD C J fi l ed a fi rs t am en de d mo ti on t o di s mi s s , as s er ti ng t he s am e cont ention s a s it s ori g ina l moti on to di smi ss and re ferenc ing at lea st four ot her l aw sui ts f iled by Scott tha t arise f rom th e sam e set of facts as th is matt er. 5 On J uly 24, 2007, the tr ial cour t, sua spont e, order ed Scot t t o s how ca use as to w hy he shoul d be all ow ed to proceed in form a pa upe ris , consi der ing an order w as entered on Janua ry 31, 2007, by

the 343rd J udi ci al Di str ic t C our t of Bee C o u n ty, Tex as, dec lar ing Scot t to be a v exatious litigant in a third law suit, trial co urt cause n um ber B-05 -122 3-CV-C. 6 The tr ial co urt furt her

order ed Sc ott to ob tai n per mis sio n b y Aug ust27, 2007, from the 343 rd Judicial Dist ri c t C o urt to proce ed in th is matt er w ithou t providing security for cou rt
cos ts. O n Augu st 31, 2007, the tri al cour t di smi ss ed Sc ott’ s c ause of acti on i n thi s mat ter
w ithou t prejud ice af

ter Scot t failed (1) to receiv e pe rmission f rom th e 34 3rd Jud icial Di strict Cou rt to proceed w it hout prov idi ng sec ur it y for cour t cos ts, or

( 2) to prov ide se cur it y . See id. § 11. 056 (Ver non 2002) ( “The cour t s hal l dis mis s a l it ig ati on as to a mov ing defendant if a pl ain ti ff

order ed to furni sh sec ur it y does not furni sh the s ecur it y w it hin the ti me setby the o rd er .” ). Sc ott filed a moti on for newtri al on Sep tember 29, 2007, w hic h w as ov er ru led by operati on of l aw
. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 329b( c)

. This appeal ens ued.4 II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW W e rev iew

the dis mis sal of

an i nmate’ s l aw sui t in form a pa upe ris and the trial court’s deter minat ion thatSc ott is a v ex ati ous li ti g ant under an abuse of

disc re ti on standard. See Leonar d v . Ab bott , 171 S.W .3d 4 51, 4 59 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 2005, pet . den ied ); Har ri son v. Tex. Dep’

t of Crim inal Justice -Inst. Div. , 164 S.W .3d 871, 874 (Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 200 5, no pet. ); Thom as v. Kni ght , 52 S.W .3d 292, 294 (Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2001, pet. deni ed)

. Abus e of di sc re ti on i s d eter mined by ex amini ng w hether

the tri a l court act ed
w it hout re ferenc e to any g uid ing ru les and pr inc ipl es. Dow ner v. Aqu am arine Op erato rs, Inc. , 701 S.W .2d 2 38, 2 41- 42 ( Tex . 198 5) ; Thom as , 52 S.W .3d a t 294 -9 5. III . A N AL Y S IS In hi s sol e iss ue on appeal , Sc ott cont ends that the t ri al cour t abu sed it s d is creti on in dis mis si ng hi s c lai m for fail ure to prov ide se cur it y for c our t c ost s. Es sent ial ly , Sc ott chal len g es the tr ial cour t’ s conc lus ion that he is a v ex ati ous li ti g ant and arg ues that the t ri al court was not aut horized to orde r him to provide secu rity to cover court costs. See Minix
v. Gonz ale s , 162 S.W .3d 6 35, 6 37 (Tex . App.–H oust on [14th Di st. ] 2005, no pet.) ( noti ng that “a pr o s e inm ate ’s petition shou ld be view ed wi th l iberality and pat ience and is not he ld to th e stringent sta nda rds app lied to fo rmal pleadin gs drafted by atto rneys”) (emp hasis in
or ig ina l)

. Con v ersel y , t he TDC J a rg ues that sec ti on 11. 053 of the ci v il pract ic e and
re medies co de does not re q uire a hear ing in thi s cas e becau se Scot t had prev iou sl y been found to be a v ex ati ous li ti g ant a nd bec aus e n o m o ti on to dete rmi ne w hether Sc ott w as
v e xa t io u s h ad b een f iled. T he T DCJ fu rther argues tha t beca use Sco tt ha d previously bee n foun d to be v exatious in cau se nu mb er B-05-12 23-CV-C, the trial court w as correct in order ing Sc ott to prov ide se cur it y for c our t c ost s.S e c ti o n 1 1 .0 5 1 o f th e c i v i l p ra c ti c e a n d re m e d i e s c o d e p ro v i d e s th a t: 7 In a l i ti g a ti o n i n th i s s ta te , t h e d e fe n d a n t m a y , o n o r b e fo re th e 9 0 th d a y a fte r th e d a te t he d ef endan t f i l es t he o r i gi nal answer or m akes a speci al appea r ance, m ov e t he co ur t f or an orde r: ( 1) det er m i ni ng t hat t he p l ai nt i ffi s a v exat i ous l i t i gant ; and

( 2 ) r e q u ir in g th e p la in tif fto f u r n is h s e c u r ity. I d. § 1 1 .0 5 1

. 5 a. A pp licab le L aw Tex as jur is pr udenc e prov ide s a m e chanis m for t he rest ri cti on of fri v olo us and
v ex ati ous li ti g ati on. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 1 1.0 51-.0 56 (Ve rnon 200 2). In en acting this me chan ism, th e Legislature so ught to “strike a bala nce b etween T exans’ rig hts to access the ir own co urts and t he pub lic inte rest in prote cting defend ant s f rom th ose
w ho a buse our civ il j ustice system. ” Leo nard , 171 S.W .3d at 455; see Harris v. Rose , 204 S.W .3d 9 03, 9 06 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2006, no pet .) ; W illm s v. A m ericas Tire Co., Inc. , 190 S.W .3d 7 96, 8 04 ( Tex . App.–D all as 2006, pet. deni ed)

. The cour t may dete rmi ne th at t he plaint if f is a vex atiou s litigant if t he def end antd em onst rates tha t the re is not a reaso nab le probabi li ty

thatthe pla int iff w il l pr ev ail i n the l it ig ati on ag ain st th e d e fendant and that the pla int iff: ( 1) in the sev en- y ear per iod i mmediat ely precedi ng the date the d efendant mak es a moti on unde r sec ti on 11. 051, has co mmenced, prosec uted, or mai ntai ned in propria 7 per sona at lea st f iv e l it ig a t io n s , o the r than in sm all claims cou rt, thathave been f inally deter mined adv ersel y

to the p lai nti ff ; or

( 2) has been pr ev iou sl y dec lared to be a v ex ati ous litig antbya state or fe dera l court in a procee ding base d on the sam e or subst ant ially si mil ar facts. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 11. 054; see also L eon ard , 171 S.W .3d 4 55- 56. If the c our t det er mines , bas ed on ev ide nce pr esent ed ata he ar ing , t hatW i t h r espect t o Scot t ’ s al l eged pov er t y , t he T D C J’ s own in f or m a pa uper

is dat a sheet i ndi cat ed t hat 8 S c o tt w a s d e c l a re d i n d i g e n t o n D e c e m b e r 2 , 2 0 0 2 , a n d th a t h e h a d n o m o n e y i n h i s i n m a te a c c o u n t. 6 the d efendant i s a v ex ati ous li ti gan t, i t m u st order the pla int iff to furni sh sec ur it y for t he benefit of t he mov ing defendant in an amount re lat ed to the cos ts and attor ney s’ fees t he defendant ant ic ipa tes i ncur ri ng i n defendi ng t h e lit ig ati on. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 11 .0 55 ( a)

. I f t he p l ai nt i ff fai l s to fur ni s h th e c ou rt- orde r ed s ec ur i ty b y t he t i me seti n the order , t he c our t mus t di smi ss the sui t. See i d. § 11 .056. b. Discus sion In i ts Jul y

24, 2007 o rd er , t he tr ial co urt not ed th at S cot t had been found by the 343rd D is tr ic t C our

t t o be a v ex ati ous li ti g ant, and presumabl y m ade the same con cl usi on. After impl ic it ly

co ncl udi ng that Scott w as a ve x ati ous li ti g ant, the tr ial court , in i ts Jul y 24, 2 0 0 7 ord e r, st a te d th e fo llo wing:

This C our

t orders t hat t his ca use shal l be s et for consi derati on by

the Cou rton A ug . 27, 2007. Pe ti ti oner , M ic hael Scott[ ,] shal l at that time pr esent to t his C our

t w ri tten per mis si on from t he J udg e of the 343rd D is tric t C our t, allowi ng him to pro ceed in th is m atte r, w ithou t providing security for cou rt costs. If the w ri tten per mis si on to proceed w it hout post ing se cur it y for c ost s is not received by this Court on or b efore Aug. 27, 200 7, th en . . . this cau se will be [d ]i sm iss e d w it h o u t f u rt h e r he a rin g. See id. § 1 1. 05 5. I n i ts A ug us t 31 , 20 07 o rde r d i s mi s s i ng S c ot t’ s c l ai m, t he t r i al court noted that Scot t had nei ther obtai ned per mis si on from the 343rd D is tr ic t C our t t o proceed
w it hout pay ment of co sts , nor pai d the co urt c ost s. See i d. § 11.0 56. The trial court did notissue an y f in d in gs statin g tha t Scott ’s claims w ere dism issed be cause they w ere f ri vo lo u s o r m a li c io u s o r t h a tS c o t th a d fa ls e ly a ll e ge d p o ve rt y. See i d. § 14 .00 3(a). 8 W e not e, ho w ev er , that the t ri al cour t’ s o rd ers i n thi s mat ter

are probl emati c. F irst,7

th e tr i al c ou rt’ s J ul y 24 , 20 07 orde r w as no t prec ed ed by a mo ti on fi l ed by th e T DCJ
re q uest ing thatthe tr ial cour t deter mine w hether Scot t w as a v ex ati ous li ti g ant a nd w hether
sec ur ity for c our t c ost s w as neces sar

y . Ins tead, the tr ial co urt i mpli ci tl y co n clu ded t hat Scot t w as a vex atiou s litig antsua spo nte . Several Texas courts ha v e he ld tha t a trial court
ma y not conclu de that a p laintif f is a v exatious litigant w hen the de fend antfailed to timely file a moti on unde r sec ti on 11. 0 51 of the ci v il pract ic e and re medies co de. See D is hner v. Huitt-Zollars, Inc. , 162 S.W .3d 3 70, 3 77 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2005, no pet.) ( hol din g that th e t r i a l c o u rt a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e c l a r i n g a p p e l l a n t a v e x a t i o u s l i t i g a nt w hen t he moti on w as filed outsi d e t he ni nety -d ay ti me per iod ); In re Marriage of Grossnickle , 115 S.W .3d 2 38, 2 52 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 2003, no pet .) ( “[ T]he ‘ v ex ati ous li ti g ant’ st atute appl ies onl y

w hen fil ed w it hin ni nety day s after the date on w hic h a d efendant fil es his or her or ig ina l answ er .” ); Spi ller v. Spi ller , 21 S.W .3d 451, 45 4 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 2000, no pet .) ( hol din g thata mot ion filed outs ide the nin ety -d ay per iod w as unti mely ); see a lso T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 11. 051; Ak inwam ide v. Tran sp. Ins . C o. , N o. 14 -0 6- 01054- CV , 2008 T ex . Ap p. LE X IS 1 892, at * *10- 12 ( Tex . Ap p.–W aco Ma r. 11, 2008, pet. deni ed) ( mem. op.) (rejec ti ng an a rg ument t hat t he tr ial co urt has “ inh er ent p ow ers” to deter mine w hether

a pl ain ti ff

i s a v ex ati ous li ti g ant w hen defendant ’s moti o n w as filed outs ide the sta tutor

y ni nety -d ay

per iod ). W e are not aw ar e of, nor has the TDC J c it ed, a ny author it y al low ing the tr ial courtto ci rc umv ent the s tatut or y prer eq uis it e of sec ti on 11. 051 by co ncl udi ng thata l it ig ant i s v ex ati ous sua spont e. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C ODE A NN
. § 11. 051. Seco nd, t he record does no t e st abl is h tha t t he tr ial co urt c onduc ted a hear ing to deter mine w hether

Sc ott w as tr uly

a v ex ati ous li ti g ant. See i d. § 11 .053; see also Nab ele kI n con t r ast t o t he p r esent case, t he 3 43r d D i st r i ct C our t ’ s Januar y 31, 2007 or der speci f i cal l y not ed 9 t hat t he def endan t s i n t hat case f i l ed a m ot i on t o di sm i ss Scot t ’ s cl ai m s accom pani ed b y a m oti on f or the tr ial c o u rt to d e te rm in e th a t S c o tt w a s a v e x a tio u s li ti g a n t. 8 v. Johns on , N o. 04-03 -0 0269- CV , 2005 T ex . App. LEX IS 2 591, at * *9- 10 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Antoni o Apr . 6, 2005, pet. deni ed) (mem. op.) (v acat ing the tr ial co urt’ s v ex ati ous li ti g ant
order i n an inmat e s uitand noti ng thatse cti on 11. 055( a) req uires that a hear ing be condu cte d to deter mine if a li ti g ant is a v ex ati ous li ti g ant)

. The Jul y 24, 2007 order

se rv ed to pu t Sc ott on not ic e tha t t he tr ial co urt had co ncl uded t hat h e w as a v ex ati ous li ti g ant a nd that he w as now

req uired to prov ide se cur it y for t he bene fit of t he TDC J in order to proceed
w it h hi s l aw sui t. Se e T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 11.055. How ev er , no hear ing
w as condu cte d pursuantto sec ti on 11. 053. See i d. § 11 .053. T hird, the trial court, in conclud ing that Sco tt w as a v exatious litigant, relied he avil y on th e 343rd D is tr ic t C our t’ s fin din g thatSc ott w as a v ex ati ous li ti g ant i n c ause numberB05-1 223 -CV-C. How ever, the T DCJ has not d em onst rated thatthe un derlyi ng f a c ts in 9
c au s e nu mb er

B
- 05
- 12 23
- C V- C a r e s ub s ta nt i al l y s imilar o r a ros e ou t of t he s am e
occurren ce or transa ction as the p resen t ma tter. In fact, a s he no ted in his hand w ritten list of prev iou sl y -fil ed law sui ts, Scot t all eg ed that, in caus e number B- 05- 1223- CV -C , v ar iou s TDC J o ff ic ial s, among othe r thi ng s, ki ck ed him in the head w hil e he w as in TDC J c ust ody in August 20 04. Unlike the prese nt case , Scott ’s claims in cause num ber B-05 -122 3-CV-C did not inv olv e a d eni al of acce ss to the c our ts. Therefore, becau se the presentca se and
cause num ber B-05-122 3-CV-C do not involv e sub stan tially similar fa cts or occurrence s,
sec ti on 11. 054( 3) w oul d notbe a ppl ic abl e. See i d. § 11.0 54(3 ). Fi nal ly , w e not e tha t bec ause TDC J fai led to file a moti on tr ig g er ing anal y si s u nder chapt er 11 o f the ci v il pr act ic e and re medies co de, w e do not h av e a b asi s for anal y z ing9

Scot t’ s p re v iou sl y -fil ed cases in the sev en- y ear per iod i mmediat ely

precedi ng the moti on, in acc ordance w it h s ect ion 11.0 54( 1)

. See i d. § 11. 054( 1)

. Al thoug h w e do not c ondone Scot t’ s h abi tual fili ng of ap par entl y friv olo us law sui ts, w e conc lud e that the t ri al cour t er re d in it s d eter minat ion of w hether Sc ott w as a v ex ati ous li ti g ant, as cont ain ed in it s J uly 24, 2007 order , for faili ng to compl y w it h s ect ion 11.0 54. See i d. § 11 .05 4(1), (3). Furthe rmore , as not ed a bove, sectio n 11 .05 5 requires that th e t ri a l court ord er a pla int iff to furni sh sec ur it y for t he bene fit of the mov ing def endant after: (1 ) a heari ng on the d efendant’ s mot ion ; and ( 2) the tr ial co urt det er mines thatthe pla int iff is a v ex ati ous li ti g ant. See i

d. § 11.055. In the pr esent cas e, the TDC J n ev er fil ed a moti on to dete rmi ne
w het her Sco tt w as a vex atiou s litig antand , as w e ha v e previously conclud ed, the trial court did not follo w

the proper

proce dur es to deter mine w hether Scott w as a ve x ati ous li ti g ant. Beca use the p ro per

procedu re s for

i nv oki ng ch apter

11 o f t he c iv il pract ic e and re medies code w er e notfoll ow ed, t he tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on in i ss uin g i ts Jul y 24, 2007 orde r requiring Scot t to f urnish secu rity for court costs, and , in t u rn , dismissing his claim ag ain st the TD CJ for fai li ng to furni sh sec ur it y on A u gus t 3 1 , 2 0 0 7. Base d on the foregoing, w e susta in Scott ’s sole issue on app eal. IV. C ONCL US I ON W e rev erse both the J uly 24, 2007 and Aug ust 31, 2007 orders of the tr ial co urt and
re mand for proceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion

.

DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 20t h day

of Nov ember , 200 8.