COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS RODNEY JOHN RAMI REZ , Appellant,

v.
GL ORI A L ETI CI A RAMI REZ , Appellee

. § § § § § § No. 08-09-00252- CV

Appea l from the
383rd District Court of El Paso County , Texas (TC# 2004CM4551)

MEMORAN DUM OP INION Appellant/re spondent Rodney J ohn Ramirez, a pro se prisoner, a p p e als the order of the 383rd
District Court dismi ssing his divorc e petition. I n a single issue, he claims that the trial court e rre d
i n d en y ing his motion for defa ult judgme nt and dismiss ing his divorce action. We reve rse an d

rema nd for f urther pr ocee dings.

F ACTS Rodney J ohn Ramirez filed his petition for divorce on J uly 19, 2004. On Aug ust 25, 2004,
he filed his motion for benc h war rant to final he aring and in the alterna tive, motion for hear ing by
confe renc e call and in the alterna tive, motion for acc eptanc e of aff idavit of testimony and aff idavit
of testimony

. Respondent Gloria Ramirez was serve d by cer tified/RRR mail on October 1, 2004.
On November 29, 2004 Appellant Ramirez filed his decla ration for entry of defa

ult and motion for
entry of default judgme nt and petiti oner’ s itemiz ed li st of communi ty proper ty (asse t’s) [ sic]. On May 11, 2007, Appellant Ramirez sent the district cler k a notice of chang e of addre ss to another unit
of TDCJ -CI D. On J uly 24, 2007, he sent a letter asking for a copy of the docket sheet for the case
. On Aug ust 21, 2009 the trial court dismiss ed the case without pr ejudice. The order does not statewhether it was made under T E X

. R. C I V

. P. 165a or under the court’s inhere nt power
. There are no 1
other order s of the court ref lected in the rec ord. Ramirez h as appealed the dismiss al. Appellant
Gloria Ramire z has not filed a brief in this C ourt.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We revie w the t ri al court’s dismiss al of a case for want of prosec ution under an abuse of
discretion standard. Sweed v. City of El Paso , 139 S.W .3d 450, 451-52 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2004,

no pet.). A trial court abuses its discr etion wher e it acts in an unrea sonable or arbitra ry manner , or
without refe renc e to any

g uiding r ules or princ iples. Id. at 452.
Dism issal w ithout rulin g on in m ate’ s request to appear
I n his sole issue on appea l, Ramirez urg es that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court

to deny his motion for defa ul t j u d gm en t an d to dismiss the divorce

. We ag ree that the trial court
abused its discre tion by

dismiss ing this ca se.
A trial court has authority to di s m i s s a case for want of prosec ution under Rule of Civil
Procedur e 165a or the court’s inhere nt power to maintain and control its docket. Id. This authority
of the court, howeve r, is not without r easona ble limit s. Id

. An inmate has a constitutional rig ht to

acc ess the civil trial courts, but t h i s rig ht is not without limit s, either, particula rly rea sonable
limit ations on the rig ht to appea r in pe rson for a

civil c ase. Id

. I n considering an inmate’s rig ht to

appea r, courts follow a balanc ing approa ch, weig hing the prese rvation of the corr ectional sy stem’s integ rity ag ainst the prisoner’ s rig ht of acc ess with the g oal of achie ving fundame ntally fair balanc e.
Id. Where th e co u rt has deter mined that the inmate will not be allowed to appea r persona lly ,

T h e r e i s n o i n d i c a t i o n i n t h e c l e r k ’ s r e c o r d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e v e r g a v e R a m i r e z n o t i c e o f i t s i n t e n t t o 1 d i s m i s s t h i s c a s e , n o r d o e s t h e d o c k e t s h e e t c o n t a i n a n y e n t r y t h a t w o u l d r e f l e c t s u c h n o t i c e
. O n a p p e a l , h o w e v e r , A p p e l l a n t m a k e s n o c o m p l a i n t w i t h r e g a r d t o n o t i c e
. U n d e r T E X

. R

. C IV

. P

. 1 6 5 a , t h e c l e r k h a s a n a f f i r m a t i v e d u t y t o g i v e n o t i c e , b u t n o d u t y t o a f f i r m a t i v e l y s h o w i n t h e r e c o r d t h a t s u c h n o t i c e w a s g i v e n
. N e v e r t h e l e s s , a s A p p e l l a n t m a k e s n o c o m p l a i n t r e g a r d i n g n o t i c e , w e a s s u m e t h a t a p p r o p r i a t e n o t i c e w a s g i v e n a n d r e c e i v e d b e f o r e d i s m i s s a l w a s e n t e r e d

.howeve r, the inmate s h o u ld be allowed to proce ed by aff idavit, deposition, telephone,
videoconf

ere nce, or other e ffe ctive mea

ns. Id.
A trial court’s ref

usal to consider and rule upon a prisoner’ s reque st to appea r in a civil

proce eding persona lly or by o t h er m ea n s , such that the inmate has been eff ectively barr ed from

prese nting his case , constitutes an abuse of discretion. In re B.R.G., 48 S.W .3d 812, 820 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2001, no pe t.). The trial court abuses its discr etion when it r equire s an inmate to appe ar

at a hear ing, while not acting on his motion for bench war rant or to appea

r by sever al alterna te means, thus eff

ectively closing the courthouse doors. In re Marriage of Bolton, 256 S.W .3d 832, 833-34 (Te x . App. – Dallas 2008, no pe t.). Her e, Ramirez informed the court of his incarce ration
and reque sted leave to appea r by bench war

rant or by alterna

tive means. The trial court never ruled

on this reque st. Rather, the court simply dismiss ed the case
. The court abused its discr etion when
it dismiss ed the case for want of prosec ution under these circ umstances. Sweed, 139 S.W .3d at 453;

In re M arriage of Buster, 115 S.W .3d 141, 145 (Tex. App. – Texarkana 2003, no pet.).
CONCLUSION
The dismissal order is re verse d, and the c ase is re manded f or fur ther proc eeding s.

SUSAN L ARSEN, J ustice (f ormer) Aug ust 31, 2010

Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, J., and L arse n, J

. L arse n, J . (sitting by

assig nment)