A pp el l an t ’ s pe t i t i on l i s t s ap pe l l ee s as D eb or a h H u rley , G ary C urri e, K el l i W ard , M i c ha el R oe s l er, 1 V e ro n i c a B ris h e r, a n d th e S ta te o f T e x a s
. 

### NUM BER 13-08- 016- 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
ROB L . N EWB Y, A pp ellan t,
v . D. HU RL EY, E T A L., A pp ellees
. On ap pe al f rom th e 1 -A D istrict Co urt of

T y ler C ou nt y , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe z App ellant , Rob L. Newby , a prison inm ate , ap p eals pr o s e and in form a pa upe ris from the dis mis sal of hi s c lai ms ag ain st appel lee s, off ic ial s e mploy ed by the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Jus ti ce- Ins ti tuti onal Di v is ion (TD CJ ). By a si ng le is sue, appel lan t 1 cont end s the trial co u rt e rred in dismissing his claims un der cha pte r fo urtee n of the civi lSee T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. §§ 14. 001-

. 014 (V ern on 20 02 & S up p. 20 07 ). 2
See H i ckson v. Moya , 9 2 6 S .W .2 d 3 9 7 , 3 9 8 (T e x . A p p .– W a c o 1 9 9 6 , n o p e t.). 3
See S cot t

v. G al l agher , 2 0 9 S .W .3 d 2 6 2 , 2 6 6 (T e x . A p p .--H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 2 0 0 6 , n o p e t.); D enson 4 v. Tex. D ep't

of C r im
. Justi ce , 63 S

. W

. 3d 45 4, 45 9 (T ex
. A pp
. –T y l er 19 99 , pe t

. de ni ed ). S e e S c o tt , 2 0 9 S .W .3 d a t 2 6 6 ; D enson , 63 S. W

. 3d a t 459

. 5
S e e S c o tt , 2 0 9 S .W .3 d a t 2 6 6 ; H a r r is o n v . T e x . D e p 't o f C r im in a l J u s tic e , I n s t. D iv

. , 164 S. W

. 3d 8 71, 6 8 7 5 (T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti 2 0 0 5 , n o p e t.).

H ar r ison , 1 6 4 S .W .3 d a t 8 7 5

. 7
S c o tt , 2 0 9 S .W .3 d a t 2 6 6

. 8 2 pr act ic e and re medies co de. W e aff ir m. 2 S t a n d a r d o f

R e v i e w a n d A p p l i c a b l e L a w W e nor mall y

r ev iew a c our t' s d is mis sal of an in f

orm a pa upe ris act ion for abuse of d isc re ti o n
. W h e n , a s he re , th e tr ia l co u rt d ism iss e s a su itw it h o u t a n evid e n ti a ry he a rin g,

3
w e may aff ir m the dis mis sal onl y i f the s uithas no arg uabl e basis in law

. W e apply a de 4
nov o s tandard of r ev iew to thi s i ss ue. 5 In con duc t in g our de novo rev iew , w e take as true the allegations in th e inm ate 's peti ti on and re v iew

the ty pes of rel ief and caus es of acti on s et o u t th er ein to deter mine wh e t h e r, a s a m a t t e r

o f la w, t h e p e t it io n st a t e d a ca u s e o f a c t io n t h a two u ld a u t h o ri ze
re li ef. I n c onsi der ing the re cord before us , w e r ev iew and ev alu ate pr

o s e ple adi ng s b y 6 stan dard s less string ent than those a p p li e d t o f orma l plead ings draf ted bylawy ers. A 7 claim has no arguable b asis in law if it is an indispu tab ly

meritless legal the ory
. Further, 8
a cl a im h a s n o a rg u a b le b a s is in la w i f t h e i n m a t e h a s f a il e d t o e xh a u s th is a d m in is t ra t iveR etz l af f v. Tex. D ep't

of C r im inal Justi ce , 94 S. W

. 3d 6 50, 653 ( T ex. App. –H oust on [ 14t h Di st

. ] 200 2, 9 p e t. d e n i e d ).

Id

. 10
S e e S c o tt , 2 0 9 S .W .3 d a t 2 6 6 ; R e tzl a ff , 94 S. W

. 3d a t 653

. 11
See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E §§ 14

. 00 4(c ), 14

. 00 6(f) (V ern on 20 02 ). 12 3 r em edie s. If

a n i nm at e fai l s t o ex ha us t hi s a dm i ni s trat i v e r em ed i es , w e ma y a ffir m a 9 dism issal ev en if

the ground w as no t presen ted in a mot ion to dismiss. 10 T hus, the issue bef ore us is w het her the trial court properly det ermin ed th at th ere
w as no arguable ba sis in law for app ellant ’s claims. 11

Discus sion Appel lan t c ontends that his cl aim inv olv es “a ll eg ed v iol ati ons of his r ig ht t o pet it ion for re dr ess of g ri ev ances and int er ferenc e w it h his ex er ci se of t hat ri g ht.” In hi s o rig ina l pet itio n, ap pellan t com plains th at th e gri evance bo x in the un it w here he is assigned is ina cc ess ibl e to inmat es becau se “t hey ar e l ock ed dow n i n the ir ce ll s.” The de fendants filed
an ans w er

and spe cia l ex cept ion s, in w hic h the y as ser ted, among othe r thi ng s, that (1 ) appel lan t fail ed to st ate a cl aim upon w hic h r eli ef can be g ra nted under se cti on 1983 of 42 U. S

. C. o r u n d e r a n y o t h e r s t a t e o r f e d e ra l st a t u t e , c o n s t it u t io n a l th e o ry, o r le ga l a u t h o ri t y; (2 ) they ar e ent it led to off ic ial i mmunity ; and (3) if appel lan t is cl aimi ng an acc ess -t o- cour ts
v iolation , he m ust est ablish “actu al prejud ice.” T he At torne y

Gene ral’s of

f ice f iled an “Amicus Curiae Ad v isory ” w ith the trial court
re q uest ing dismi ss al of appel lan t’ s sui t as f ri v olo us. Spec ific all y , the adv is or y arg ued t hat appel lan t fail ed to co mply w it h c hapter

14 r eq uir eme n ts b e caus e ( 1) he fai led to inc lud e
a c o p y o f h i s t r u s t a c c o u n t a s r e q u i r e d i n s e c t i o n 1 4

. 0 0 4 ; a n d ( 2 ) h i s c l a ims hav e no 12W e n o te th a t t h e d o c u m e n ts a tt a c h e d to a p p e lla n t’s p e tit io n in c lu d e a S te p 1 G r ie v a n c e F o r m , in 13 w h ic h a p p e lla n t c o m p la in s th a t h e s u b m itt e d a h a n d
- w r itt e n g r ie v a n c e , a n d th a t H u r le y r e tu r n e d it th e n e x t d a y, vi a t he pri s on ’ s i nterna l m ai l sy s t em , al on g w i t h a bl an k S t ep 1 G ri eva nc e F orm
.

C om eaux v. Thal er , C i v i l Act i on No. H
- 01- 1411, 200 8 U. S. D i st

. LEX I S 2 3571, at * 63 ( S. D

. T ex. 14 20 08 ). Id

.

15
Id

. 16 4 ar g uabl e bas is i n l aw
. The adv is or y al so ar g ued t h a t appel lan t fail ed to sh ow that sovereig n imm unity was w aived, and that his claim w as an access-to-co urts claim f or w hich he mus t s how

“ act ual i njury.” I n h is “ Fi rs t Su ppl emental Pet it ion ,” appel lan t al leg ed th at Defen dant Hur ley

v iol ated his r ig ht t o pet it ion w hen s he fail ed to r etur n hi s h and- w ri tten g ri ev ance, i n w hic h he compl ain ed of hi s i nabi li ty to obtai n St ep 1 g ri ev ance forms. The 13 tr ial co urt di smi ss ed appe ll ant’ s s uitas fri v olo us. In his b ri e f , a p p e lla nt asse rts that h is suit is “abo ut th e de nial of and interf eren ce
w it h [hi s] ri g ht t o fil e g ri ev ances , and sh oul d nothav e been subj ect ed to the acc ess to courts actua l injury

stand ard.” App ellant asserts tha t he “stat ed a claim for den ial of his ri g ht t o pet it ion .” The S tate cont ends th a t “[ t]he ri g ht t o pet it ion is the ri g ht of ac ces s t o
cour ts. ” W e ag re e w it h the Sta te. In Co me aux v. Thal

er , the cour

t found t hat a n i nmate’ s c omplai nt t hat h e had 14 ina deq uate acc ess to the p ri son g ri ev ance pr oces s and suff ic ien t leg al suppl ies i mpli cat ed the constitu tiona l ri ght to access to the co urts. “Prisoners clearlyhave a constitu tiona lly 15 prote cted rig ht of

access to th e cou rts.” To est ablish a d e n ia l o f access to th e cou rts, 16 h o we ve r, a p ri s o n e r m u s td e m o n s t r a t e “ a c t u a l i n ju ry” a s a re s u lt o f t h e a ll e ge d vio la t iveId

. a t *6 4 ; see a l so Rom er o v. Vaughn , N o
. 0 4 -0 3 -0 0 6 4 9 -C V , 2 0 0 4 T e x . A p p
. L E X I S 4 9 1 5 , a t *6 17 ( T ex. App. –San Ant oni o Jun e 2, 200 4, pet

. den i ed) ( m em
. op. ) ( ci t i ng Lew i s v. C asey , 518 U

. S. 343 , 351
- 52 (1 9 9 6 ))

. C om eaux , 2008 U

. S. D i st

. LEX I S 23571 , at * 64 ( quot i ng M c D on al d v

. S t ew art , 132 F. 3d 2 25, 231

18 (5t h C i r. 19 98 ).

S e e M c D o n a ld , 132 F. 3d a t 231 19
See C om eaux , 200 8 U. S. D i st

. LEX I S 23571 , at * 64 . 20
See G al

l agher , 209 S. W

. 3d a t 266 . 21 5 condu ct. I n oth er w or ds, he must est abl is h that “h is pos it ion as a l it ig ant w as pr eju dic ed

17 by hi s d eni al of acce ss to the c our ts. ” 18 Appel lan t c annot pr ev ail on h is ac ces s- to- the- cour ts cl aim b e ca u se h e has not all eg ed i nju ry

i n pendi ng li ti g ati on in thi s or any other cas e. The doc uments att ached to 19 appel lan t’ s p eti ti on i ncl ude St ep 1 and Step 2 Gr iev ance For ms, in w hic h he compl ain ed of the pro cess by w hich griev ance s are subm itted byprisoners in h ig h -se curitycells. Becau se a p p e ll ant fai led to all eg e an act ual i nju ry or l eg al pr eju dic e r esul ti ng from t he all eg ed “ int er

ferenc e” w it h hi s “ ri g ht t o pet it ion ,” he fai led to adeq uatel y st ate a c la im f or den ial of access to th e cou rts. 20 Acc or din g ly , app ell ant’ s c lai m for deni al of hi s r ig ht of ac ces s t o the co urts had no arguable basis in law , and the trial court did not err i n dism issing the law suit as f riv olou s. 21 W e aff ir m the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ment.

LINDA REYNA Y AÑEZ, J u s t i c e
Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 21s t day

of Aug ust , 200 8.