## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 0 2 - 0 7 -4 0 1 - CV J I M H. HA M I L T ON , J R . AP P E L L ANT V . ED D I E C. W I LL I A M S, TO M M Y L. A PPELL EES N O R W O O D , M IC H A E LD . H IL L , T. ROD DEY, AN D KEL L I W ARD

----- ----- --

FR O M THE 89TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F W I CH I TA CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### OPI NI ON

----- ----- -- I . I nt r oduc t i on I n t hr ee i ssues, p ro se A ppel l antJi m H . H am i l t on, Jr . appeal s t he t r i al c o u rt ’ so r d e rd i s m i s s i n g a sf r i v o l o u sh i sc l a i m sag ai ns tAp p e l l e e sE d d i e C.1 ... Th e appel l ees ar e em pl oyees oft he T exas D epart m entofC r i m i nal

J u s t i c e ( “ TDCJ ” ) ; t h e r e f o r e , w e r e f e rt o t h e a p p e l l e e sc o l l e c t i v e l ya s“ TDCJ em pl oyees” exceptw her e i napp r opr i at e. 2 W i l l i am s, Tom m y L . N or w ood, M i cha elD . H i l l , T. Roddey , an d Kel l iW ar d. 1 W e a f f i r m. I I . Fa ct ualan d Proce duralBac kground H a m ilt o n , a n in m a t e in t h e J a m e sA llr e d U n ito ft h e T D C J , f ile d s u it a ga i ns tTDCJ e m pl oyee s , i n t he i ri nd i vi du a l a nd o f f i c i a l c a pa c i t i e s , o n M a y 2, 200 7, c o m p l a i n i n g t h a th i sd u e p r o c e s sr i g h t sa n d h i sr i g h tt o p r i v a c yo ft he per so n ha d be en vi ol at ed. I n r esp ons e, W i l l i am s, N or w ood, an d Hi l l f i l ed a m ot i on t o di sm i ssH am i l t on ’ s cl ai m s asf r i vol ouson t he gr oundst hat( 1) t he af f i dav i tH am i l t on f i l ed w i t h hi s pet i t i on d i d notco m pl y w i t h s ec t i on 14 . 00 4( a) ( 2) of t he Tex as C i vi l Pr act i ce and Rem edi es C ode; ( 2) H am i l t on f ai l ed t o pr ovi de cop i esofhi s adm i ni st r at i ve gr i eva nce s asr equi r ed by s ec t i on 14 . 0 0 5 ( a)( 2 ) ; ( 3) H am i l t on f ai l ed t o f i l e a ce rt i f i ed cop y ofhi s t r us tac cou nt s ta te m e n t a s re q u i re d b ys e c ti o n 1 4 .0 0 4 (c ) a n d 1 4 .0 0 6 (f); an d (4 ) H a m i l to n ’s c l a i m sw e re fri v o l o u sb e c a u s e th e yh a d n o a rg u a b l e b a s i sin la w o r fa c t. S ee Tex . C i v. Pr ac. &Rem . C ode A nn. §§ 14 . 00 3– . 00 6 ( V er non 20 02 ) . Th e t r i al c o u rtg ran ted the m o ti o n an d d i sm i ss e d w i th p rej u d i c e H a m i l to n ’s su i t i n i ts ent i r et y f orf ai l ur e t o c om pl y w i t h c hap t er fou rt ee n oft he ci vi l pr ac t i cean d r em edi esco de. Ham i l t on t hen f i l ed a m ot i on f orne w t r i alan d, i n t he3

al t er nat i ve, a m ot i on t o r ei nst at e. Th e t r i al court di d not r ul e on t hese m ot i ons, and, acc o rding l y, t hey w er e over r ul ed by op er at i on of l aw . Thi s appeal f ol l ow ed. I I I . M o ti o n for N e w T ri a lan d to R e i n sta te I n h i s f i r sti ssue, H am i l t on ar gues t hatt he t r i al courter r ed by f ai l i ng to r ul e and cond ucta hear i n g o n hi s m ot i on f ornew t r i al and t o r ei nst at e. A l t hou gh H am i l t on pr esent s t hi s i ssue as pert ai ni ng t o both hi s m ot i on f ornew tr i a l an d h i s m o ti o n t o r e i n sta te, h i s l e g a l arg u m e n t an d an a l y sis r e fer o n l yto hi s m ot i on f orn ew tr i al ; ther ef or e, w e d o not consi derhi s m ot i on t o r ei nst at e. See Tex . R . A pp. P. 38 . 1( i ) ( “The br i ef m ust contai n a cl ear and c o n ci se ar gum entf ort he con t ent i onsm ade , w i t h a ppr opr i at e c i t at i onst o a ut hor i t i esan d to th e re c o rd .” ). A . St andar d ofRev i ew W e r evi ew a t r i al cou rt ’ s den i alofa m ot i on f orne w t r i alf oran ab us e o f d i s c re ti o n . See Cl

if f v. Huggi

ns , 724 S. W . 2d 778, 778– 79 ( Te x. 1987 ) . To det er m i ne w het her a t r i al courtabused i t s di scr et i on, w e m ustdeci de w het her t he t r i al co urtacted w i t hou tref er ence t o any gui di ng r ul es or pr i nci pl es; i n ot her w o rd s , w e m u s t d e c i d e w h e th e r th e a c t w a sa rb i tra ryo r u n re a s o n a b l e . Ci re v. Cum m i ngs , 1 3 4S .W .3 d 8 3 5 , 8 3 8

– 3 9 (T e x . 2 0 0 4 ).4

B. Di sc us si on H am i l t on assert s t hatt he t r i al courter r ed by f ai l i ng t o r ul e and cond uct a h e a ri n g o n h i s m o ti o n for n e w tr i a l b e c a u se h e h a s a co n sti tu ti o n a l ri g h t t o ac ce sst o t he cou rt s. H ow eve r , H am i l t on f ai l ed t o pr ovi de anyl ega l ar gum ent ast o how t he t r i alco urt ’ s f ai l ur e t o r ul e o n hi s m ot i on v i ol at ed h i s r i ghtof a c c e s sto th e c o u rts ; th e re fo re , w e n e e d n o t c o n s i d e r i t. S eeTex. R. A pp. P. 3 8 .1 (i ). N ext , H am i l t on c l ai m s t hata t r i alco urtm us tco ns i deran d r ul e o n a m ot i on f or new t r i al w i t hi n a r ea so nab l e t i m e. A t r i al cou rt , how eve r , doe s not abu sei t s di sc r et i on bynot r ul i ng on a m ot i on a nd byal l ow i ng t he m ot i on t o be o v e rru l e d b yo p e ra ti o n o f l a w . S ee T e x . R . C i v . P . 3 2 9 b (c ) (s t a t in g th a t “ [i ]n t he eve ntan or i gi naloram end ed m ot i on f ornew t r i al. . . i s notde t er m i ned by w r i t t en or ders i gne d w i t hi n s eve nt y- f i ve day s aft ert he j udgm entw ass i gne d, i tshal l be consi der ed over r ul ed by op er at i on of l aw on expi r at i on of t hat p e ri o d ” ); see al

so Transp. I

ns. Co. v. Mor

i el, 879 S. W . 2d 10, 28 ( Te x. 1994 ) ( hol di ng t ha t“ t r i alco urt s hav e n otev en bee n r equ i r ed t o r ul e o n m ot i onsf or new t r i alast he pas sa ge ofti m e m ay se rve t o ov er r ul e a ne w t r i alm ot i on by ope r at i on ofl aw ”) . Ther ef or e, t he t r i al cou rt di d not abu se i t s di sc r et i on bynot r u lin g o n H a m ilt o n ’s m o t io n f o rn e w t r ia l.5

Fi nal l y, H am i l t on ar gues t hatbecause hi s m ot i on f ornew t r i al r a i sed is s u e sn o td e t e r m in a b le f r o m t h e re c o r d , in c lu d in g in f o r m a t io n n o tp r e v io u s ly ava i l abl e t o hi m , t he t r i alco urtab us ed i t s di sc r et i on bynothol di ng a he ar i ng. H o w e v e r , w h e t h e rt o h o ld a n e v id e n t ia ryh e a r in g o n a m o t io n f o rn e w t r ia l in a c i vi l m att eri s w i t hi n t he t r i alco urt ’ s di sc r et i on un l es s t he grou nd f ort he m o ti o n i sj u rym i s c o n d u c t. Par ham v. W

i l bon , 746 S. W . 2d 347 , 3 5 1 ( T ex. A p p .— F o rtW o rth 1 9 8 8 , n o w ri t); s e ea l s o Je faCo . v. Mus ta ngT ra c to r & Equi p. Co. , 8 6 8 S .W .2 d 9 0 5 , 9 0 9 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s t o n [1 4 t h D is t .] 1 9 9 4 , w r it d e n i e d ). Co n traRo zel l v. S tate , 176 S. W . 3d 228, 230 ( Te x. Cr i m . App . 2005 ) ( gen er al l y, i n a cr i m i nalca se , a t r i alco urts houl d hol d a n evi den t i ary he ar i ng on a m o ti o n f o r n e w t ri a l if th e m o ti o n a n d a tta c h e d a ffid a v i t ra i s e m a tte rsth a t a re not det er m i nabl e fr om the r ecor d and t hatd em onst r at e reas onab l e gr oun ds t hat c o u l d e n ti tl e t h e a c c u s e d t o re l i e f); Re yes v. S tate , 849 S. W . 2d 812, 816 ( Tex. C r i m . A pp . 1993 ) ( hol di ng i n a cr i m i nalca set hatde f end anti s ent i t l ed t o a hear i ng on m ot i on f ornew t r i al w hen m ot i on f ornew t r i al “r ef l ect [ s] t hat r ea so nab l e g r oundsex i stf orhol di ng t hat ” m ot i on f orn ew tr i alco ul d be g ra n te d ).2 ... H am i l t on assert ed si x gr oun ds i n hi s m ot i on f or new t r i al : ( 1) t he t r i al

c o u rt fa i l e d to s c h e d u l e a h e a ri n g d a te a n d re fu s e d to ru l e o n H a m i l to n ’s o bje c t io n st o t h e m o t io n t o d is m is s ; ( 2 ) t h e t r ia l c o u rte r r e d b yre f u s in g t o h o ld a he ari ng orr ul e o n Ham i l t on’ s m ot i on f orde f aul tj udgm ent , m ot i on f orl ea ve and ap pl i ca t i on f orw r i tofm and am us , m ot i on f orl ea ve t o a m end af f i dav i t , an d obj ect i on t o W i l l i am s, N or w ood , and H i l l ’ s m ot i on t o di sm i ss; ( 3) H am i l t on w as ent i t l ed t o a n o- answ erdef aul tj udg m entagai nstRo ddey an d W ar d; ( 4) t he t r i al c o u rt ’ s o r d e rt o d is m is sw a sn o ta v a lid o r d e rb e c a u s e itw a sn o ts u f f ic ie n t ly d e fi n i te a n d c e rt a in to d e fi n e the fac to rs o f ch a p ter fou rt e e n o n w h i c h i ts dec i si on w asbase d a nd do esnotdi sp os e o fal l t he def end ant s t o t he su i tan d t he capaci t y i n w hi ch t hey w er e sued ; ( 5) the t r i al co urtco m m i tt ed f und am ent al er r orby di sm i ss i ng Ham i l t on’ s su i ton t he m er i t s w i t h pr ej ud i ce an d i ncl udi ng a s t at em entt hatal l cl ai m s notpr evi ous l y r ul ed upon w er e den i ed; an d ( 6) t he t r ia l c o u rtc o m m it t e d f u n d a m e n t a l e r r o rw h e n itd is m is s e d H a m ilt o n ’s a r g u a b le cl ai m s w i t hou tgi vi ng no t e ofH am i l t on’ s pendi ng m oti o n to d i sm i ss and an opport uni t y t o Ham i l t on t o a m end hi s com pl ai ntan d a f f i dav i tbe f or e r ul i ng.

3 ... A n i ssue i s m ul t i f ar i ous w hen i tgener al l y att acks t he t r i al court ’ s or der w i t h nu m erou s argu m e n ts . Se eHo llif ield v. Ho llif

ield, 925 S. W . 2d 153, 155 (T e x . A p p .— A u s ti n 1 9 9 6 , n o w ri t); Cl an c yv. Za leCo rp . , 705 S . W . 2d 820, 823 ( Tex. A pp. — D al l as1986 , w r i tr ef ’ d n. r . e. ) . W e m ay di sr ega r d a ny a ss i gnm ent 6 H er e, H am i l t on di d notr ai sej ury m i sc onduc tas a gr ound i n hi s m ot i on; 2 t her ef or e, t he t r i al courtdi d n otabuse i t s di scr et i on byf ai l i ng t o hol d an e v i d e n ti a ryh e a ri n g o n H a m i l to n ’sm o ti o n fo r n e w tri a l . Id. A c c o r d i n g l y , we over r ul e H am i l t on’ s f i r sti ssue. I V . Fu nda m ent alEr r or In h i ss e c o n d i s s u e , H a m i l to n m u l ti fa ri o u s l ya rg u e sth a t th e tri a l c o u rt com m i t t ed f unda m ent aler r orby di sm i ss i ng a n a r gua bl e c l ai m w i t houtgi vi ng h i m (1 ) n o ti c e o f th e p e n d i n g m o ti o n to d i s m i s s , (2 ) a n o p p o rtu n i ty to b e h e a rd o n the m o ti o n , a n d ( 3 ) a n o p p o rt u n i ty to am e n d h i s c o m p l a i n t an d affi d a v i t. 3o f e rro rt h a tis m u l ti fa ri o u s . S e eHo llif ield, 9 2 5 S .W .2 d a t 1 5 5 ; Cl ancy , 705 S . W . 2d at8 24 . A l t er nat i vel y, w e m ay consi dera m ul t i f ar i ous i ssue i fw e can det er m i ne, w i t h r easonabl e cert ai nt y, t he er r orabout w hi ch com pl ai nti s m ade. Se eGreenv. Kap o sta , 152 S . W . 3d 839, 842 n. 2 ( Tex. A pp. — D al l as2005 , no pet . ) . Al t hough H am i l t on’ s se con d i ss ue i s m ul t i f ar i ous , w e ar e abl e t o f ol l ow a m aj o ri tyo f th e a rg u m e n t a n d w i l l p ro c e e d . S eeTe x. R. App . P. 38. 9. 7 H a m i l to n en g rafts i n to h i s a rgu m e n t co m p l a i n ts th a t ( 1 ) h i s du e p roc e ss ri g h ts w e r e v io la t e d , ( 2 ) h e ise n t it le d t o d e c la r a t o rya n d in ju n c t iv e re lie f , a n d (3 ) h is r i ghtt o pr i vac y i n hi s per so n w asvi ol at ed. I n hi s t hi r d i ss ue, H am i l t on c ont end s th a t t h e tr i a l co u rtco m m i tted fun d a m e n ta l e rro r byd i sm i ss i n g h i s c a se w i th pr ej udi cei n i t s ent i r et y. Bec aus e Ham i l t on’ s se con d a nd t hi r d i ss uesove r l ap, w e a ddr es s t hem s i m ul t ane ous l y. A . A ppl i cabl e Law W e r evi ew a di sm i ss alunderchapt erf ourt ee n f oran ab us e o fdi sc r et i on p e r th e s ta n d a rd s e t o u t a b o v e . Bi sh op v. La wson , 131 S . W . 3d 571, 574 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 4 , p e t. d e n i e d ). I n or dert o c ont r ol i nm at e l i t i gati on , w hi ch m ay be f r i vol ous , t he l egi sl at ur e enact ed chapterf ou rt e e n o ft he ci vi l pr act i ce and r em edi es code. SeeT e x . C i v . P ra c . &R e m . C o d e A n n . § § 1 4 .0 0 1

– .0 1 4(V e rn o n 2 0 0 2 ). C h a p ter fou rt e e n “a p p l i e s o n l yto a su i t bro u g h t byan i n m a te i n a d i stri c t, cou nt y, j us t i ceoft he pea ce , ors m al l cl ai m s cou rti n w hi ch an af f i dav i tor un s w or n de c l a r a t i on o fi na bi l i t y t o pa y c os t si sf i l e d byt hei nm at e. ” Id.8

§ 1 4. 00 2. C hapterf ourt een set s f ort h pr ocedu r al requi r em ent s an i nm at e m ust s a ti s fya sa p re re q u i s i te to fi l i n g s u i t. Id. § § 1 4 . 0 0 2 , 1 4 . 0 0 4

– . 0 0 6 ; se eal so Li l ly v. Northrep , 1 0 0 S .W .3 d 3 3 5 , 3 3 6 ( T e x . A p p .— S a n A n to n i o 2 0 0 2 , p e t. d e n ie d ). S h o u ld t h e in m a t e f a il t o c o m p lyw it h t h e s e r e q u ir e m e n t s , h iss u itw ill b e d i s m i s s e d . L illy , 100 S . W . 3d at336 ( ci t i ng Bel l v. Tex. D ep'tof

Cr i m i nal Jus ti ce -I ns t. Div. , 9 6 2 S .W .2 d 1 5 6 , 1 5 8 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 1 9 9 8 , p e t. d e n i e d )). H ow ever , even i fa n inm at e sat i sf i es t he necessary f i l i ng r equi r em ent s, t he t r i alco urtm ay di sm i ssan i nm at e’ s cl ai m i fi tf i ndst he cl ai m t o bef r i vol ous o r m a l i c i o u s . T e x . C i v . P ra c . &R e m . C o d e A n n . § 1 4 .0 0 3 ; Com ea ux v. Tex. D ep’t of Cr

i m i nal Justi ce , 1 9 3 S .W .3 d 8 3 , 8 6 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 200 6, pe t . de ni ed) . A cl ai m i s f r i vol ousorm al i ci ousi fi tha s no ba si s i n l aw or fa c t. Co m ea ux, 19 3 S . W . 3d at 8 6. W hen an i nm at e’ s l aw sui ti s di sm i ssed as f r i vol ousf orha vi ng n o ba si s i n l aw ori n f ac t , butno f ac the ar i ng i s hel d, our r evi ew f ocuses on w het hert he i nm at e’ s l aw sui thas an ar guab l e basi s i n l aw . T e x . C i v . P ra c . &R e m . C o d e A n n . § 1 4 .0 0 3 ; S cottv. Gal l agher, 209 S. W . 3d 262 , 266 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 1stD i st . ] 2006 , no pet . ) . A cl ea rf ai l ur e b y t he t r i al cou rt t o ana l yz e or app l y t he l aw cor r ec t l y i s an abu se of di screti on. McDani el v. Yar brough , 8 9 8 S .W .2 d 2 5 1 , 2 5 3 (T e x . 1 9 9 5 ).9

In c o n d u c ti n g o u r re v i e w , w e t a k e a st ru e t h e a l l e g a ti o n sin a n i n m a te ’s p et i t i on and r evi ew t he t ypes of r el i ef and causes of act i on s et out th e rei n to det er m i ne w het her , asa m att erofl aw , t he pet i t i on s t at ed a c aus e o fac t i on th a t w o u l d a u th o ri z e re l i e f. Se eSc o tt, 2 0 9 S .W .3 d a t 2 6 6 ; Har r i son v. Tex. D ep 'to f Cr im in a l Jus tic e, I

n s t. D iv . , 164 S. W . 3d 871 , 875 ( Tex. A pp. — C or pus C hr i st i20 05 , no pet . ) . Acl ai m has no ar guab l e b asi s i n l aw i fi trel i es upon an i n d i s p u ta b l ym e ri tl e s sl e g a l th e o ry . S c o tt, 2 0 9 S .W .3 d a t 2 6 6

– 6 7 . F u rth e r, a c la im h a sn o a r g u a b le b a s isin la w i ft h e in m a t e h a sf a ile d t o e x h a u s th is a d m i n i s tra ti v e re m e d i e s . Leachm an v. D retke , 26 1 S. W . 3d 29 7, 31 1 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth , 2 0 0 8 n o p e t.); Retzl af f v. Tex. D ep'tof

Cr i m i nal Justi ce , 94 S . W . 3d 65 0, 65 3 ( Tex . A pp. — H oust on [ 14 t h D i st . ] 20 02 , pet . deni ed) . I fan i nm at e f ai l s t o exhau sthi s adm i ni st r at i ve r em edi es, w e m ay af f i r m a di sm i ssal even i ft he gr oun d w as notpr esent ed i n a m ot i on t o di sm i ss. Tex. C i v. Pr ac. & R e m . C o d e A n n . § 1 4 .0 0 5 ; Re tzl a ff, 94 S . W . 3d a t653. Fi nal l y, w hen w e r evi ew a t r i al court ’ s di sm i ssalw i t h pr ej udi ce under cha pt erf ourt ee n, w e c ons i derw het hert he i nm at e c oul d r em edyt he er r or th ro u g h a m o re s p e c i fi c p l e a d in g . W i l l i amsv. Bro wn , 33 S . W . 3d 410, 412 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 2 0 0 0 , n o p e t.); see D enton v. Her nandez , 504 U .S . 2 5 , 3 4 , 1 1 2 S . C t. 1 7 2 8 , 1 7 3 4(1 9 9 2 ) (c o n s tru i n g th efe d e ra l i n fo rm a paup er i s st at ut e and fi ndi ng t hatappel l at e court s shoul d r evi ew w het her10

d i s m i s s a l w a sw i th o r w i th o u t p rej u d i c e ); Lent worth v. Trahan , 981 S . W . 2d 720 , 722– 23 ( Tex. A pp. — H ous t on [ 1stD i st . ] 1998 , no p et . ) ( l i st i ng t he i n s ta n c e si n w h i c h a s u i t m a yb e d i s m i s s e d w i th p rej u d i c e ); see al so Hol loway v. A nder

son , N o. 13- 00- 003 69- C V , 2001 W L 346153 56, at*3 ( Tex. A pp. — C or pusChr i st iA ug. 16, 2001 , no pet . ) ( notde si gna t ed f orpubl i ca t i on) (s a m e ). B . N o ti c ea n d O p p o rtu n itytob eH e a rd H a m i l to n as se rt s th a t he w a s e n ti tl e d to n o ti c e o f t h e p e n d i n g m o ti o n to d i sm i ss an d an o p p o rt u n i ty to b e h e a rd o n the m o tio n . H o w e v e r, an i n m a te w h o b ri n g s a clai m fal l i n g w i th i n th e s c o p e o f c h a p ter fo u rt e e n h a s n o ri g h t t o n o ti c e o f a m o ti o n to d i s m i s s , n o r to a m a n d a to ryh e a ri n g . S ee Tex . C i v. Pr ac. & R e m . C o d e A n n . § 1 4 .0 0 2 (st a ti n g th a t tri a l c o u rt m a yd i s m i s si n m a te ’s c l a i m s b e fo re s e rv i c e o f p ro c e s s ); Huges v. Massey, 6 5 S. W . 3d 743 , 745 ( Tex. A pp. — Beau m ont2 001 , no pet . ) ( hol di ng t hati nm at e had no r i ghtt o not i ceof m o ti o n to d i s m i s so r o p p o rtu n i tyto a m e n d ); Thom asv. W i chita Gen. Hosp. , 95 2 S. W . 2d 93 6, 93 8 ( Tex . A pp. — Fort W ort h 19 97 , pet . deni ed) ( st at i ng t hat court ’ s det er m i nat i on w het hert o hol d a h ear i ng i s di scr et i onar y) . Ther ef or e, t he t r i alco urtdi d notabus e i t s di sc r et i on bynotgi vi ng Ham i l t on no t i ceoft he p e n d i n g m o ti o n o r b yd i s m i s s i n g h i sc l a i m sw i th o u t a h e a ri n g . A c c o rd i n g l y , w e over r ul e t hi s port i on of H am i l t on’ s second i ssue.11

C . O pport unity t o Am end H am i l t on f urt hercl ai m s t hatt he t r i alco urtab us ed i t s di sc r et i on by di sm i ss i ng hi s cl ai m s w i t h pr ej udi ce w i t houtgi vi ng hi m an oppo rt uni t y t o a m end h i sc o m p l a i n t a n d a ffid a v i t. W e d i s a g re e . A d i s m i s s a l w it h p rej u d i c e i sa ru l i n g o n th e m e ri tsa n d i sth e re fo re i m pr ope ri fthe tr i alco urt ’ s di sm i ss ali s bas ed on pr oce dur alde f ec t s t hatt he i n m a te c a n r e m e d y . See Gar rettv. W

i l l i am s , 250 S . W . 3d 154, 160 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rt h 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t.); Hi ckmanv. A dams , 35 S . W . 3d 120, 125 ( Tex . A pp. — H oust on [ 14 t h D i st . ] 20 00 , no pet . ) ( hol di ng t hatdi sm i ssalunder se c ti o n 1 4 .0 0 4i s n o t dism i ss a l o n the m e ri ts a n d t h u s tri a l co u rtab u se s i ts di sc r et i on i fi tdi sm i ss esw i t h pr ej udi cea cl ai m w her e p r oce dur alde f ec tca n be r em edi ed) . How eve r , i ft he t r i alco urt ’ s di sm i ss ali s bas ed on t he con cl us i on th a t t h e i n m a te’s c l a i m h a s n o arg u a b l e b a sis i n l a w , th e n a d i sm i ss a l w i th prej ud i ce i s pro p e r. S e eNa b elekv. Di st. A tt’yo f Ha rr

i s Co un ty , No. 14- 03- 0 0 9 6 5 -C V , 2 0 0 5 W L2 1 4 8 9 9 9 , a t * 7 ( T e x . A p p .— H o u sto n [ 1 4 th D i st.] S e p t. 8 , 2 0 0 5 , p e t. d e n i e d ). T h e re fo re , w e m u s t d e te rm i n e w h e th e r th e tri a l c o u rt cou l d ha ve di sm i ss ed H am i l t on’ s cl ai m s on t he gr oundst hatt heyha d no ar guab l e basi s i n l aw . 1. Ri ght t o D ue Pr ocess12

H am i l t on m ade var i ous al l egat i ons w i t h r espectt o t he T D C J em pl oyees’ vi ol at i onsofTD C J po l i ci esan d pr oce dur esf ori ni t i at i ng, co nduc t i ng, an d r evi ew i ng di sc i pl i na ry pr oc e e di ng sa ga i nsti nm at es. H am i l t on’ s com pl ai nt s st em f r om a di sc i pl i nary he ar i ng a tw hi ch, hea l l ege s, t he of f i ce rco nduc t i ng t he hear i ng r ef used t o acceptorr evi ew an af f i da v i t h e subm i tt ed i n hi s def ense. A tt he end oft he hea r i ng, t he of f i ce ri m pos ed a puni sh m entoff i ft ee n da ysof ce l l r es t r i ct i on a nd l os s ofco m m i ss ary pr i vi l ege s. Ham i l t on a r gue d t hatt he TD C J em pl oyees’ f ai l ur e t o f ol l ow TD C J’ s pol i ci es and pr ocedu r es w i t h r espect t o di sc i pl i nary pr oce edi ngsvi ol at ed hi s duepr oce ssr i ght s and de pr i ved hi m of hi s l i bert y i nt er es tunde rt he f ede r alco ns t i t ut i on. H ow ever , t o br i ng a due pr ocess cl ai m i n t hi s context , t he pl ai nt i f fm ust as se rt a pr ope rt y i nt er es t t hat i s pr ot ec t ed by t he Fourt ee nt h A m end m entoft he U ni t ed St at esConst i t ut i on orart i cl e I , s ec t i on 19 oft he Texa s con st i t ut i on. Se eBd. o f Reg en ts o f S tateCo l l s. v. Ro th , 4 0 8 U .S . 5 6 4 , 5 7 0

– 7 1 , 9 2 S . C t. 2 7 0 1 , 2 7 0 5

– 0 6 (1 9 7 2 ); Conc er ned Cm ty. I

nvolved D ev. , I

nc. v. City of Hous ton , 2 0 9 S .W .3 d 6 6 6 , 6 7 1 (T e x . A p p .— H o u sto n [ 1 4 th D i st.] 2 0 0 6 , p e t. deni ed) . I ft he pl ai nt i f f does not assert a pr ot ect ed pr opert y i nt er est , t he t r i al c o u rt la c k sj u ri s d i c ti o n o v e r th e s u i t. S ee Nat 'l Col legi ate A thleti

c A ss' n v. Yeo , 17 1 S . W . 3d 8 63 , 87 0 ( Tex . 20 05 ) . The Yeo co u rtsta ted , “T o h a v e a p rop e rt y i nt er es ti n a be nef i t , a per so n c l ea r l y m us tha ve m or e t han an ab st r ac tne ed or13

d e sir e for i t. H e m u st h a v e m o re th a n a u n i l a tera l e x p e c tati o n o f i t. H e m u st, i nst ead, have a l egi t i m at e cl ai m ofent i t l em entt o i t . ” Id. at8 70 n. 19 ( quot i ng Ro th , 4 0 8 U .S . a t 5 7 7 , 9 2 S . C t. a t 2 7 0 9 ). C e ll re s t r ic t io n sa n d lo s so fc o m m is s a ryp r iv ile g e sa r e m e r e lyc h a n g e sin t he cond i t i ons ofan i n m a te’ s conf i nem entand do n oti m pl i cat e due pr ocess c o n c e rn s . See Mal

i chi v. Th aler, 2 1 1 F .3 d 9 5 3 , 9 5 8 (5 th C i r. 2 0 0 0 ); Madi son v. Par ker, 10 4 F. 3d 76 5, 76 7– 68 ( 5th C i r . 19 97 ) ( eval uat i ng i nm at e’ s cl ai m ed deni al ofdue pr ocess atd i sci pl i nar y hear i ng based on al l egat i on t hathe w as r ef us ed opport uni t y t o of f erdoc um en t ary e vi den cean d hol di ng t hatl os s of com m i ss ary pr i vi l ege s and i m pos i t i on ofcel l r es t r i ct i onsdo n oti m pl i ca t e d ue p ro c e s sc o n c e rn s ). T h e re fo re , th e tri a l c o u rt p ro p e rl yc o n c l u d e d th a t H a m i l to n ’s duepr oc ess cl ai m s had no a r gua bl e b as i s i n l aw an d, co ns equ ent l y, di d not abuse i t s di scr et i on bydi sm i ssi ng t hese cl ai m s w i t h pr ej udi ce underchapt er fo u rte e n . See Nabelek , 2 0 0 5 W L2 1 4 8 9 9 9 , a t* 7 . A c c o r d in g ly , w e o v e r r u le t he port i ons of H am i l t on’ s second and t hi r d i ssues pert ai ni ng t o hi s due pr ocess cl ai m s. 2. Ri ghtt o Pr ivac y i n hi s Perso n H am i l t on a l so as se rt s t hatheha s a c on sti t ut i ona l r i ghtt o notbe unne ce ss ar i l y vi ew ed by p er so ns oft he oppos i t e s ex w hi l e h e i s nak ed. Speci f i ca l l y, H am i l t on cl ai m s t hata f em al e of f i ce rl ook ed i nt o hi s ce l l w i t hout havi ng a peno l ogi cal i nt er est , i n vi ol a ti o n o fhi s const i t ut i onal r i ght t o pr i vacy14

i n h i s p e rso n . H e a sk e d th e tri a l c o u rtto d e c l a re th a t his co n sti tu ti o n a l ri g h t t o pr i vac y i n hi s per so n ha d be en vi ol at ed and t o e nt era per m ane nti nj unc t i on agai nst f ut ur e vi ol at i ons. H ow ever , H am i l t on f ai l ed t o pr operl yex haust a d m in is t r a t iv e re m e d ie sb e f o r e f ilin g s u ito n t h isc la im . T h e l e g i slatu re m a n d a ted tha t T D C J d e v e l o p an d m a i n tai n an i n m a te gr i eva nces ys t em . Tex . G ov’ tCode Ann. § 501. 008 ( a) ( V er non 2004) . The adm i ni st r at i ve gr i evance pr ocess est abl i shed by T D C J begi ns w i t h an i nf or m al a ttem p t t o res o l v e the p ro b le m . I f t h e i n fo rm a l atte m p t i s u n su c c e ss fu l , tw o s te p s fo l l o w . T h e i n m a te h a sfi fte e n d a y sfro m th e g ri e v a b l e e v e n t to fo rw a rd a ste p o n e g ri e v a n c e fo rm to th e u n i t g ri e v a n c e i n v e sti g a to r. I f un sa ti sfi e d w i th th e ste p o n e d e c i sion , th e i n m a te m a y a p p e a l b y su b m i tti n g a ste p tw o fo rm to t he uni tgr i evance i nvest i gat orw i t hi n f i ft een days oft he st ep one r esp onse. T e x . D e p ’t o f C ri m i n a l J u s ti c e , O f f ender O r i entati on Handb ook 5 2 (r ev. N ov. 2 0 0 4 ),h ttp://w w w .td cj .state .tx .us /p u b li c a tio n s /c id /O ff e n d O ri e n tH b k N o v 0 4 .pd f. H e r e , in t h e f ir s t s t e p o ft h e g r ie v a n c e p r o c e s s , H a m ilt o n a s s e rt e d a c la im fo r v i o l a ti o n o f h i sc o n s ti tu ti o n a l rig h t to p ri v a c yi n h i sp e rs o n ; h o w e v e r, H am i l t on f ai l ed t o f ol l ow t hr ough and r ea ss ertt hi s cl ai m i n t he se con d s t ep of t h e g r ie v a n c e p r o c e s s . A sa r e s u lt , H a m ilt o n d id n o ta llo w t h e p r is o n o f f ic ia ls a n o p p o rtu n i ty to c o rre c t a n y a l l e g e d e rro rs . See Woodf ord v. N

go , 548 U. S. 81, 85, 126 S . Ct . 2378 , 2382 ( 200 6) ( di sc us si ng e xha us t i on r equ i r em ent u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 9 7 e (a ), P ri s o n L i ti g a ti o n R e fo rm A c t); Pozo v.15

Mc Ca ugh try , 28 6 F. 3d 10 22 , 10 23 –2 4 ( 7th C i r. 20 02 ) ( st at i ng t hat a d m i n i strati v e g ri e v a n c e p roc e d u re g i v e s p ri so n ad m i n i strati o n o p p o rt u n ityto f i x pr obl em orm i t i gat e d am age s and s hed l i ghto n f ac t ualdi sp ut esatt end i ng pr ospect i ve l i t i gat i on i fi nm at e i s notsat i sf i ed) . I n ot herw or ds, H am i l t on f ai l ed to e x h a u s th is a d m i n i s tra ti v e re m e d i e s . S ee Leachm an , 261 S. W . 3d a t311 ( concl udi ng t hatappel l antf ai l ed t o exhausthi s r em edi es t hr oug h t he gr i evance pr oce ssast o t w o oft he app el l ee s bec aus e h e d i d noti ncl udet he nam esoft he tw o a p p e l l e e si n th e s e c o n d s te p o f th e g ri e v a n c ep ro c e s s ); se e al soWolf v. Tex. D ep’tof

Cr i m i nal Jus ti ce, I ns t. Div. , 182 S . W . 3 d 4 49, 451 ( Tex. A pp. — Texa r ka na 200 6, pe t . de ni ed) ( “W ol f ’ s gr i eva ncedoe s notad dr es s t he i s s u e s h e b r o u g h t i n h i s c i v i l p e t i t i o n , a n d w e c a n n o t s a y h e e i t h e r so ughtor re c e i v e d a fi n a l a d m i n i s tra ti v e d e c i s i o n o n th o s e i s s u e s .” ); Ridd lev. T D CJ-ID , N o . 1 3 -0 5 -0 0 0 5 4 -C V , 2 0 0 6 W L3 2 8 1 2 7 , a t * 2 ( T e x . A p p .— C o rpu s C h ri sti F e b . 9 , 2 0 0 6 , p e t . d e n ie d ) (m e m . o p ., n o t d e s ig n a t e d f o rp u b lic a t io n ) ( “ R id d le di d notex hau stt he gr i eva ncepr oce dur esf ort hos e i ndi vi dua l s na m ed i n t he c la im w h o w e r e n o tn a m e d i n t h e g r ie v a n c e . T h u s , R id d le d id n o tf u lf ill a ll sta tu to ry p roc e d u ral req u i rem e n ts.”). A s a res u l t of H a m i l to n ’s fai l u re to exhausthi s adm i ni st r at i v e rem edi es, t he t r i al courtpr oper l y concl uded t hat H a m i l to n ’sp ri v a c yc l a i m h a d n o a rg u a b l e b a s i si n l a w . S ee Leachm an , 261 S. W . 3d a t311; Re tzl a ff, 94 S.W .3 d a t 6 53 ( st at i ng t hatf ai l ur e t o exhau st a d m i n i s tra ti v e re m e d i e sw i l l re s u l t i n a c l a i m th a t h a sn o a rg u a b l e b a s i si n l a w ).16

T h e r e f o r e , b e c a u s e H a m ilt o n c a n n o tre m e d yt h e e r r o rt h r o u g h a m o r e s p e c if ic p l e a d i n g , th e tri a l c o u rt d i d n o t a b u s e it sd i s c re ti o n b yd i s m i s s i n g H a m i l to n ’s p ri v a c yc l a i m w it h p rej u d i c e u n d e r c h a p te r fo u rte e n . S ee Leachm an , 261 S .W .3 d a t 3 1 1 ; see al so Nabelek , 2 00 5 W L 2 14 89 99 , at * 7 ( concl udi ng t hat d is m is s a l w it h p r eju d ic e isa p p r o p r ia t ew h e n c la im h a sn o a r g u a b le b a s isin l a w ). F u rt h e rm o re, al th o u g h w e i n terp ret a p o rt i o n o f H a m i l to n ’s arg u m e n ts to a s s e rtt h a ts o v e r e ig n im m u n it yd o e sn o ta p p lyt o t h e T D C J e m p lo y e e s , in t h e ir i ndi vi dua l an d of f i ci alca pac i t i esan d, t her ef or e, t he T D C J em pl oye esar e n ot i m m unet o H am i l t on’ s cl ai m s, bec aus e w e con cl ude t hatH am i l t on’ s cl ai m s hav e n o a rg u a b l e b a s i si n l a w , w e n e e d n o t a d d r e s sth i si m m u n i tya rg u m e n t. S ee Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 1. Accor di ngl y, w e o ver r ul e t he r em ai ni ng po rt i onsof H am i l t on’ s second and t hi r d i ssues. V . Concl us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d a l l t h re e o f H a m i l to n ’sis s u e s , w e a ffir m t h e t ri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t. B OBM CC OY J U S T I C E PA N EL: LI V I N G STO N , D A U PH I N O T, an d M C C O Y, JJ. D A U PH I N O T, J. co ncu r s w i t h opi ni on. DEL I VERE D: Aug us t31, 2009

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 0 2- 07 -40 1- CV J I M H. HA M I L T ON, J R . AP P E L L ANT V . ED D I E C. W I LL I A M S, TO M M Y L. A PPELL EES N O R W O O D , M IC H A E LD . H IL L , T. ROD DEY, AN D KEL L I W ARD

----- ----- --

FR O M THE 8 9TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F W I CH I TA CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### CONCURRI NG OPI NI ON

----- ----- -- I agr ee w i t h m ostoft he m aj or i t y’ s opi ni on, butI w r i t e separ at el y because I di sagr ee w i t h t hi s court ’ s pr ecedent r egar di ng hear i ngs on m ot i ons f ornew t r i al . As t he m aj or i t y not es , t hi s cou rtha s hel d t hatw het hert o hol d a he ar i ng on a m ot i on f orne w t r i al i s di sc r et i ona ry w i t h t he t r i al cou rt unl es s t he gr ound1 ... See Par ham v. W

i l bon , 7 4 6 S .W .2 d 3 4 7 , 3 5 1 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 1 9 8 8 , n o w ri t); se e al soTayl or v. Tayl

or, No . 0 2
- 0 5 - 0 0 4 3 5 - CV, 2007 W L 2 4 6 0 3 5 9 , a t * 6 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth A u g . 3 1 , 2 0 0 7 , p e t. d e n i e d ).

2 ... Ce ci l v. Sm ith , 8 04 S. W . 2d 509 , 5 12 n. 5 ( Tex. 1991 ) ( ci t i ng Par ham , 7 4 6 S .W .2 d a t 3 5 1 ); s e eal s o Ha wki

n sv. Ho wa rd, 97 S. W . 3d 676 , 678 ( Tex. A p p .— D a l l a s2 0 0 3 , n o p e t.). 2 a ss e rt e d i n the m o ti o n i s j u ry m i sc o n d u c t. 1 I b e lie v e t h a tt h isc o u rts h o u ld fo l l o w the rul e ap p l i e d b yo th e r c o u rt s o f ap p e a l s a n d i n cri m i n a l l a w — th a t a tr i a l c o u rt m u st h o l d a h e a ri n g o n a m o ti o n for n e w tr i a l i f t h e m o ti o n “p res e n ts a q u e sti o n o f fa c t u p o n w h i c h e v i d e n c e m u st b e h e a rd” a n d a l l e g e s fac ts th a t, ift r u e , w o u ld e n t it le t h e m o v a n tt o a n e w t r ia l. 2 B u t b e c a u s e t h e o u t c o m e in th i sc a s e w o u l d n o t b e d i ffe re n t u n d e r th a t ru l e , I c o n c u r.

L E E AN N D AUP HI NOT J U S T I C E DEL I VERE D: Aug us t31, 2009