### NUM BER 13-08- 0063 4-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 A NT HON Y EV A NS, A pp ellan t,

v . A ND REA

E. EL DR IDGE , M ICH A EL JA CKSON, LA NA

K. PODSI M , TONY CL EM ENT S, A ND H EA TH ER JU NK ERMEIER, A pp ellees

. On ap pe al f rom th e 2 67t h Dist rict C ou rt o f D e W itt 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 R o d rig u 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 Ant hony Ev ans, i s a n inmate c ur re ntl y hous ed i n the Ste v enson Uni t of the Tex as Dep ar tment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce- Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion (“ TDC J- ID ”)

. Ev ans brings the instan t pro se ap pea l comp laining that the trial court erred bydismissing his civ il ri g hts sui t ag ain st appel lee s, TDC J- ID empl oy ees TonyC lement s, Andr ea El dr idg e, M i c ha el J ac k s on , H ea th er J un k er me i er , an d La na P od s i m. W e affi r m.

I. B A CKGRO UND On M ar ch 28, 2 008, El dr idg e, a cor re cti onal off ic er a t the S tev enson U nit , fil ed a disciplinary repo rt alleging that Ev ans co mm itted sex ual m iscond uct by mastu rbatin g inT h e T D C J ’ s a d m i n i s tra ti v e g rie v a n c e p ro c e s s , i n s ti tu te d a t t h e b e h e s t o f th e l e g i s l a tu re , see T EX

. 1 G OV ’ T C OD E A NN . § 5 0 1 .0 0 8 ( a ) ( V e r n o n 2 0 0 4 ) , b e g in s w i t h a n in f o r m a l a tt e m p t t o r e s o lv e th e in m a te ’s pr obl em

. I f t he i nf or m al at t em pt i s unsuccessf ul , t wo st eps f ol l ow. Fi r st , t he i nm at e has f i f t een day s f r om t he gr i ev abl e ev ent t o f or war d a st ep 1 gr i ev ance f or m t o t he u ni t gr i ev ance i nv est i gat or

. I funsa t i sf i ed wi t h t he s te p 1 d e c is io n , t h e in m a te m a y a p p e a l b y s u b m itt in g a s te p 2 f o r m to th e u n it g r ie v a n c e in v e s tig a to r w ith in fifte e n d a y s o f t h e s te p 1 re s p o n s e

. See T EX

. D EP ’ T OF C R I M I N AL J US T I CE , O F F E NDE R O RI E NT A T I ON H ANDB OOK 5 2 (re v . N o v . 2 0 0 4 ), a v a i l a b l e a t ht t p: / / www

. t dcj

. st at e. t x. us/ publ i cat i ons/ ci d/ O f f endO r i ent H bkN ov 04. pdf( l ast v is i te d J u l y 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 ); see a lso W hirt y v. G r im es , No s

. 0 7

- 0 8

- 0 3 9 4

- CV, 0 7

- 0 9

- 0 1 1 1

- CR, 2 0 09 T ex. App. LE X I S 25 35 , at * 4-5 (T ex

. A pp

. –A m ari l l o A pr. 14 , 20 09 , no pe t

. ) (m em

. op

. , no t de s i gn ated for pu bl i c ati on ). I t i s un di s pu t ed t ha t E van s ex ha us t ed t hi s proc ed ure w i t h res pe c t t o C l em en t s , E l dri dg e, an d J un k erm ei er. 2 publ ic

. On Apr il 2, 2008, a hear ing r eg ardin g the all eg ati ons w as hel d before Ja ck son, a dis ci pli nar

y hear ing off ic er

. After re v iew ing the ev ide nce, Ja ck son re nder ed a findi ng of guilt and asse ssed variou s p unish me nts againstEv ans, including restrictions on his
re creati on and commi ss ar y pr iv il eg es as w ell as a modi ficat ion o f E van s’ s c ust ody

l ev el from min im u m s e cur ity to medium sec ur ity

. Jac ks on’ s d eci si on w as lat er aff ir med on app eal by Podsim , a gr ievance investig ato r. 1 Ev ans, proceed ing pro s e and in form a pa upe ris , f iled his origi nal pe tition a ga inst app e l l e e s o n J u n e 2 6 , 2 0 0 8 , s e e k i n g d a ma g e s a n d a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e a p p e l l ees had depr iv ed hi m of, and c onspi re d to int er fere w it h, hi s c iv il r ig hts

. See 42 U .S.C . §§ 1983, 1985( 3) ( 2009). T h e peti ti on s peci fical ly al leg ed th at E ldr idg e, al ong w it h fell ow correction al of

f icers Clemen ts and Junke rmeie r, conspired to f ile a f alse disciplinary repo rt ag ain st Ev ans in re tal iat ion for p ri or l eg al act ion s t aken by

Ev ans ag ain st the TD CJ

. The peti ti on furt her

al leg ed that Ev ans w as deni ed a fair and impar

ti al di sc ipl ina ry

heari ng by J ac k s on , an d th ath e w as d en i ed fai r a nd i mp ar

ti al a pp el l at e r ev i ew

b y P od s i m. On J uly 28, 2008, El dr idg e, J ack son, Ju nker meier , a n d P o dsi m file d an answ er g ener all y

deny ing Ev ans’ s a ll eg ati ons , a s well as a mot ion to dis mis s E v ans’ s s uitas fr ivolous. See T EX

. C IV

. P R AC

. & R EM

. C OD E A NN

. § 14. 003( a) (2 ) (V er non 200 2)

. The
m o t io n t o d is m is s a ll e ge d sp e c if ic a ll y t h a t : (1 ) E va n s f a il e d t o e xh a u s th is a d m in is t ra t ive
reme dies against Po dsim and Jackson ; (2) Ev ans’s civ il r ights claims are no t cogniz able becau se jud g ment for him w oul d “nec ess ar il y imply ” the inv ali dit y

of the d is ci pli nar

y ac ti ons take n against him ; and (3) Ev ans’s allegatio ns do not sup port a reta liation o r due proce ss cl aim under

se cti on 1983 or

a c onspi ra cy

cl aim under

se cti on 1985

. The tr ial co urt g ra nted3

the mot ion to di s mi s s on Au g us t 18 , 20 08 , w i th ou t s pe c i fy i ng th e g rou nd s up on w hi c h it

w as g ra nted. E va n s f ile d a m otion for new trial on Sep tem ber 5, 2 008 and a mo tion for def ault jud g ment w it h r espec t t o C lement s o n Oc tober 7, 2008. The moti ons for new tr ial and for default jud g ment w er e deni ed on Oct ober 22, 2008. This appeal foll ow ed. II. D I S CUS S I ON A

. A pp licab le L aw an d St and ard o f Rev iew Chap ter 14 of

t he T exas Civ il Pract ice and Re me dies Code a pplies to all suits, such
as the s uitat bar , fil ed by i nmates w ho dec lare the msel v es unabl e to pay cos ts. T EX

. C IV

. P R AC

. & R EM

. C OD E A NN

. § 14. 002( a) ( Ver non 200 2)

. Sect ion 14. 0 0 3 a u th o ri z es a tr ial
cour t t o di smi ss any

cl aim in suc h a s uitw her e the courtf ind s that the c lai m is fri v olo us or mali ci ous. Id. § 14.0 03(a )(2). T h e s t a t u t e state s that , in dete rmining w het her a claim is f riv olou s or malicious, the trial court m ay consid er w het her: (1 ) the c lai m’s r eal is ti c c hance of ult imat e s ucc ess i s s li g ht; (2 ) the c lai m has no arg uabl e bas is i n l aw or i n fact; (3 ) iti s c lea r that the p arty ca nnot prov e facts i n s uppor t of the cl aim; or (4 ) the c lai m is su bst anti all y si mil ar to a prev iou s cl aim filed by the inmat e beca use th e claim a rises fro m th e sam e op erative fa cts. Id. § 14 .003( b)

. A tria l co u rt may di smi ss a c hapter

14 s uitw it hout affordin g the inmat e noti ce, oppor

tuni ty to be heard, or oppor tuni ty to amend th e pet it ion

. Agu ilar v. Chastain , 923 S. W .2d 7 40, 7 45 ( Tex . Ap p.–Ty ler 1996, w ri t den ied ) (c it in g T immo n s v. Luce , 840 S.W .2d 582, 586 (Tex

. App.–Ty ler 1992, no w ri t) ; Kendr

ic k v. Lynau gh , 804 S.W .2d 1 53, 155 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 199 0, no w rit))

. W hen a tr ial co urt di smi ss es an i nmate’ s s u it a s f ri v olo us or mal ic iou s, w e r ev iew that ru li ng under

an a buse of dis cre tion s tandard. Jac ks on v . T ex. D ep’ t of C ri m ina l Justice-In stitutio nal Div. , 28 S .W .3 d 81 1, 8 13 ( Tex . App .–Corp us Christi 2000 , pet . den ied). To est abl is h an abuse of di sc re ti on, E v ans must show thatthe tr ial co urt’ s a cti on w asU n d e r th e s e c ir c u m s ta n c e s , a n in m a te ’s c iv i l r i g h ts c la im s w ill n e v e r th e le s s b e c o g n iz a b le ifit is 2 d e m o n s tra te d th a t t h e c o n v i c ti o n o r s e n te n c e h a s p re v i o u s l y b e e n i n v a l i d a te d

. H eck v. H um phr ey , 5 12 U. S. 4 7 7 , 4 8 7 (1 9 9 4 ); see Edw ards v. Balisok , 520 U

. S. 641 , 643 ( 1997)

. I t i s und i sput ed t hat non e of t he p u n is h m e n ts im p o s e d u p o n E v a n s a t t h e A p r il 2 , 2 0 0 8 d is c ip lin a r y h e a r in g h a v e b e e n in v a lid a te d in a n y w a y. 4 arbitrary or unre ason able in lig ht of all the circumsta nces in the case, or tha t the trial court act ed w it hout re ferenc e to any g uid ing r ule s a nd pr inc ipl es. Lewis v. Jo hnson , 97 S.W .3d 885, 887 (Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no p et.) ; see Down er v. Aqu am arine Op erato rs, Inc. , 701 S.W .2d 2 38, 2 41- 42 ( Tex . 198 5) ; see als o McC ra y v . Lan gehenni

ng , No. 13- 07- 00143- CV , 200 8 Tex . App. LEX IS 6522, at *2-3 (Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti Aug. 26, 2008,
n o p e t

. ) ( m e m

. o p

. ). Be c a u s e t h e t ri a l c o u rt d id n o t s p e c ify t h e gro u n d s fo r d is m is s a l, we
w ill af f irm the decision i f

a n y t h e oryadvanced in the m otion to dism iss is me ritorious. W a l k e r v

. G o n za le s

C o u n t y S h e r i f f ’s D e p ’t , 35 S.W .3d 157, 16 2 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2 0 0 0 , p e t. de n ie d ) (ci ti n g Car r v. Br asher , 776 S.W .2d 5 67, 5 69 ( Tex . 198 9) ; T r i go v. Mu noz , 993 S.W .2d 419 , 421 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 199 9, pe t. de nied )). B. A nal ysis It i s well se ttl ed th at i f an in mate w is hes to c hal len g e a d is ci pli nar y co nv ic ti on or puni shment that he re cei v es w hil e he is inc ar cerated, as in thi s c ase, he mus t fil e a h abeas
cor pus act ion i n fede ra l cour t. See P

re is er v. R odr igu ez , 411 U.S. 485 , 500 (1973 ); Alexa n d e r v. W

are , 714 F .2d 4 16, 4 19 ( 5th C ir . 198 3) ; Ex par te B ra ger

, 704 S.W .3d 4 6, 46 (Tex

. Cr im. App. 1986) (h old ing that Tex as sta te cour ts w il l not enter

tai n habeas ac ti ons ch all eng ing v iol ati ons of pri son dis ci pli nar y procedu re s) ; s e e a l

s o Jo n e s v

. T e x . D ep’ t of Crim inal Justice -Corr. Insts. Div. , No. 13-0 5-19 7-CV, 200 6 T ex. App . LEXIS 50 88, at *7-8 (Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti June 15, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.)

. That is becau se a federa l habeas co rp us peti ti on i s t he ex cl usi v e r e m e d y a vai lab le to a cl aimantw her e the r eli ef requeste d w ould “un derm ine the validityo f a state conviction.” Alexander , 714 F .2d a t 419 (ci ti n g Richar

dson v. Flem ing , 651 F .2d 3 66, 3 73 ( 5th C ir . 198 1) ). This r eason ing extends to ap pea ls w here the request ed relief w ould und ermin e the v alidity of a prison disciplina ry
ru li ng

. See i

d. 25

Ev ans ass erts that a j udg ment in his fav or “ w oul d notnec ess ar il y

i mply the inv ali dit y of his disciplinaryhea ring.” See Heck v. Hum phr ey , 512 U .S. 477, 487 ( 1994) ( hol din g that hab ea s is the ex clusiv e rem edy fo r a state prison er w here the relief requested w ould “nece ssarily

imply” the invalidity

of the con v iction or sent ence ). H owev er, the Fifth Circuit Cou rtof Appeal s h as hel d tha t: W hatev er

the nature o f

t h e r eli ef he see ks for a n i sol ated v iol ati on, t he pr is oner mustr esor

t t o habea s c or pus and ex haustst ate re medies

. On t he othe r h a nd, w e hav e s ug g est ed th at “ a broad due proces s c hal len g e” to a pr is on di sc ipl ina ry

sy ste m w oul d repr esenta c hal len g e to condi ti ons of confine ment, for w hic h a c iv il r ig hts r emedy w oul d be av ail abl e. Alexander

, 714 F .2d a t 419 ( int er nal ci tati ons omit ted)

. Ev ans sta tes tha t t he g ra v amen of his suit is a challen ge to the “cond itions of conf inem ent ,” but his allegation s stem solely f ro m t h e d is c ip li n a ryh e a ri n g h e ld o n A p ri l 2 , 2 0 0 8 , a n d t h e su b s e qu e n ta d m in is t ra t ive appeal

. Ev a n s d o e s n o tm a k e a “ b ro a d d u e p ro c e s s c h a l l e n g e ” t o t h e c o n d i t i o n s of conf inem ent ; rathe r, he me rely c o n t e n d s thathe w as de priv ed o f fair hearings in this particu lar, isolated instan ce. W e the refore con clude that , und er the d octrine s set forth in Pr eis er and Alexander

, non e of Ev ans’ s c iv il r ig hts cl aims ar e c og niz abl e under se cti ons 1983 or 1985 of tit le 42 of the Uni ted S tates C ode. Beca use Evans’s suit ha d no arguable basis in law or fact, the tr ial court w as w ithin it s d is creti on to di smi ss i t as fri v olo us under se ct io n 14.003( b) of the c iv il pract ic e and
re medies co de. Ev ans’ s i ss ue i s o v er ru led

. III

. C ONCL US I ON The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

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 13t h day

of Aug ust , 200 9.