NUMBER 13-13-00217-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

DAVID READEAUX #786468, Appellant,

v.

TRINA VELASQUEZ, ET.AL., Appellees.

On appeal from the 343rd District Court

of Bee County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides and Longoria

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

By one issue, appellant Donald Readeaux,1an inmate proceeding pro se, 

appeals the trial court’s dismissal of his suit against appellees Trina Vasquez and 

 

1

The trial court’s dismissal order and the State’s amicus curiae brief refers to appellant as 

“Readeauz” but appellant’s hand-written notice of appeal refers to him as “Readeaux.” Because the 

difference is not germane to the disposition of this appeal, for the sake of clarity we will refer to appellant 

as “Readeaux.”
2

Correctional Officer Kennedy2for frivolousness and for failure to comply with Chapter 

14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See generally TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE ANN. §§ 14.001–.014 (West 2002). We affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND

Appellant is an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice unit in 

Beeville, Texas. Appellant filed suit for a declaratory judgment that appellees had 

stolen his radio. The trial court requested and received an amicus curiae brief from the 

Office of the Texas Attorney General. See id. § 14.009. The Attorney General 

recommended that appellant’s lawsuit be dismissed on multiple grounds. The trial court 

entered an order dismissing appellant’s lawsuit as “frivolous and for failing to comply 

with Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.” See id. §§ 14.001–

.009. This appeal followed.3 

II. ANALYSIS

1. Standard of Review and Applicable Law

Litigation by inmates “in which the inmate files an affidavit or unsworn declaration 

of inability to pay costs is governed by special procedural rules set out in chapter 

fourteen of the civil practice and remedies code.” Thomas v. Knight, 52 S.W.3d 292, 

294 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, pet. denied); see TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 

ANN. § 14.001. We review a dismissal of an inmate lawsuit brought under chapter 14 

for abuse of discretion. Thomas, 52 S.W.3d. at 294. “To establish abuse of discretion, 

 

2

Appellant stated in his Original Petition that he never learned Officer Kennedy’s first name. 

3

The Attorney General again filed an amicus curiae brief in this Court recommending that we 

affirm the trial court’s order.
3

the complaining party must show that the trial court’s action was arbitrary or 

unreasonable in light of all of the circumstances of the case.” Id. 

Inmates must receive a decision from the “highest authority” in the prison 

grievance system before filing a claim in state court. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. 

§ 501.008(d) (West 2004). Further, an inmate must file a claim in state court “before the 

31st day after the date the inmate receives the written decision from the grievance 

system.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 14.005(b). “A suit that is not timely filed 

pursuant to Section 14.005(b) is barred and may be dismissed with prejudice.” Simmon 

v. Harrison, 387 S.W.3d 812, 814–15 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2012, pet. filed) (citing

Moreland v. Johnson, 95 S.W.3d 397, 395 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no 

pet.)).

2. Discussion

In his sole issue, appellant complains that the trial court erred in dismissing his 

lawsuit because it did not permit him to remedy his noncompliance with chapter 14. 

Appellant attached a copy of both his Step One and Step Two Grievance Response 

Forms to his original petition. The Step Two Form is dated as being returned to 

appellant on July 28, 2012. According to the provisions of section 14.005(b), appellant’s 

deadline to file suit was therefore August 27, 2012. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 

ANN. § 14.005(b). Appellant’s original petition was filed on October 1, 2012, sixty-four 

days after the deadline. If an inmate fails to comply with deadlines in section 14.005(b), 

the trial court “has no discretion but to dismiss the lawsuit.” Lewis v. Johnson, 97 

S.W.3d 885, 888 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.). Because the chapter 14 

defect in appellant’s lawsuit could not be remedied, we conclude that the court did not 
4

abuse its discretion in dismissing appellant’s lawsuit. See id.; see also Simmon, 387 

S.W.3d at 814–15; Moreland, 95 S.W.3d at 395.

We overrule appellant’s sole issue. 

III. CONCLUSION

We affirm the order of the trial court. 

_______________________

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice

Delivered and filed the

15th day of August, 2013.