### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 ON MOTION F OR REHEARING

444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 NO. 03-06-00117- CV
St an H unt , A ppe lla nt

v. Am alia Rodriguez-Me ndoza, Travis Coun ty Distr ict Cle rk , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. GN50176 8 , HO NORAB LE GISELA D. TRIANA , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
We w ith dr aw o ur

op ini on date d July

11 , 2 00 7, and

su bs tit ute the fo llo wi ngin i ts p l ac e. W e o v erru l e H u n t ’s m o t i o nfo r r eh ea ri n g.

Stan Hun t a

pp e a ls f ro m th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s dis mis sa l of his laws uit

a g a ins t T ra

vis County Di str ic t Cle rk

Am a lia Rod ri g ue z-M e nd oza

fo r f a ilure to c omp ly

wi th c ha pte r 1 4 o f t

he c ivi l prac tice and remedie s code, which gover ns inmate litigation. See Tex. Ci v. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 14 .0 01 -. 01 4 ( Wes t 20 02 ). I n f our iss ue s on a

pp e a l, Hunt c la ims that he wa s de nie d his ri g ht t o a hea ring on the dismissal, alleg es that the district cour t interfer ed with his compliance with the statute, asser

ts that the di strict court a

bused its discretion in order ing the dismiss al, and c ontends that his case should not have been dismissed with prejudice . We refor m the j udg ment to refle ct that the dis mis sa l w a s w ith ou t pr e jud ic e . A s r e fo rm e d, we a ff ir m.2 BACK GR OUND Hunt is an inmate confine d in the I nstitut ional Division of the Texas Depar tment of Criminal J ustice. I n May 2005, Hunt filed suit ag ainst Rodrigue z-Mendoza, primarily alleg ing that he wa s being denied a cce ss to court rec ords maintained by the Travis County District Clerk’s Of

fice
. Hunt f ile d with his pe tit ion an af fi davit of his ina

bil ity to pay c ourt c os ts a

nd a re qu e st f or le a ve to proce ed in forma

pauper is. Chapter 14 of the civil pr actice and reme dies code applies to a suit brough t b y an inmate in a district, county , justice of the pe ace , or small cl ai m s court in which an aff idavit or unsworn d ec l ar at i o n of inability to pay costs is filed by

the inmate. Se e id
. § 1 4
. 0 0 2 ( a )
. In
acc ordanc e with sec tion 14.004(a), Hunt filed a “D ecla ration of Pre vious L itigation,” in whic h he listed 42 previously filed lawsuits. See id
. § 14.004(a) (West 2002). P ursuant to sec tion 14.006(f), Hunt was a lso require d to file a c ertified co p y o f “t he inmate’ s trust acc ount statement.” Se e id
. §§ 14.004(c) , .006(f) (West 2002)
. The statement is r equire d beca use money is w ithdrawn fr om the inmate’s trust ac count in order to pay for court fee s, court costs, and other c osts, and the statement indicates the a

mount that is available to be withdra wn. Se e id . § 14.006(a) , (e) , (f) . Howeve r, the
re c or d d oe s n ot r e fl e c t th a t H un t f ile d s uc h a

state me nt. On No ve mbe r 1 4, 20 05 , Ro dr ig ue z-M e nd oza fi le d a mo ti on to d ism iss the su it,
a ll e g in g th a t H u n t f

a il e d to c o mp ly w it

h th e r e qu ir e me n ts o f c h a p te r 1 4
. Sp e c if

ic a ll y , Ro dr igu e zM e n d o za c la im e d th a t H u n t n e g le c te d

to me n ti o nth a t o n e o f

h is p r e v io u s la

w s u it s h a d

been dismiss ed as f

rivolous, se e id . § 14.004(a) (2)( D) (re quiring that inmate “de scribe[] each suit that was previously

broug ht by

. . . stating the result of the suit, including whether the suit was dismissed as3

frivolous or malicious under Section 13.001 or Section 14.003 or otherw ise.”), a nd that Hunt failed to file a cer

tified copy of hi s trust acc ount statement. Se e id
. § 14.004(c) (“The aff idavit or unsworn decla ration [of inability

to pay costs] m ust be ac companied by the certified copy

of the trust ac count statement re quired by

Section 14.006(f) .”). A hea ring on the motion to dis miss was set for Dec ember 2, 2005. On that date, the district court g rante d the motion to dis miss. The district c ourt’s order specifie d that the dismissal
wa s “ wi th p re

jud ic e .” Th re e da

y s late r, on De c e mbe r 5 , H un t f ile d a re sp on se to t

he mot ion

to dismiss and a “Motion for Telephone Confere nce H ear ing on D efe ndant’s Motion to Dismis s.” The motion was overr

uled by operation of law. This appe al followed.

DI SCU SSIO N Ri ghtto he ar ing

I n h is f ir st i ssu e , H un t a sse rt s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt a bu se d it s d i s c r e t i on

by “ imp lic itl y denying” his “ timely reque st to appea r by telephone confe renc e at the sc heduled dismissal hear ing.” I n lawsuits f

iled under chapte r 14, the district court’s de cision to hold a hear ing pr ior to dismis sal is d is c r e ti o n ar

y . See id . § 14 .0 03 (c ) ( “ I n d e te rm ini ngwh e the r [t o d ism iss a c la im], the c ourt may ho ld a h e ari ng .” (e mph a sis a dd e d) ); Thomas v. W ichita Gen. Hosp. , 952 S.W .2d 936, 938 (Tex. App.—For

t Worth 1997, pet. denied). No abuse of discretion is shown when the inmate does
n o t demonstrate tha

t there is evide nce that he would have prese nted at the he aring
. S e e Ha ll v. Treon , 3 9 S. W.3 d 722 , 724 (T e x. Ap p. —B e a umo nt 2 00 1, no pe t.) ; Thomas , 952 S.W .2d at 938. I n h is “ Mo tio n f

or Te le ph on e Con fe re nc e He ari ng ,” Hunt fa ile d to dem on str a te that he h a d s pe c if ic
e vid e nc e to pr e se nt of c omp lia nc e wi th c ha

pte r 14
. On thi s re c or d we ho ld that the dis tr ic t c ourt did4

not abuse its discretion in denying Hunt’s motion to appea r at the hea

ring by telephone c onfer ence . We overrule Hunt’s first issue.
The di strict

court’ s alleged interfere nce I n his second issue, Hunt alleg es t hat t he dis trict court pr evente d him from comply ing with chapter

14. Specifica lly , Hunt asser ts that he sent a c opy

of his inmate trust acc ount statement to v ari ou s d istri c t court of fi c ia ls both b e fo re and

a ft e r t he fi lin g of

his c ur re nt l aws uit , b ut t

hat th e se officia ls “ref

used” to file the statement. Hunt ref ere nces no competent e vidence that would support this claim, and we c o n cl u d e that the district court did not abuse its discre tion in concluding otherwise. We ove rrule H unt’s second issue.
Dism issal f

or failu re t o com ply w ith chapter 14 I n h is th i r d i s s u e , H u n t a s s e rt s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t ion in dis mis sin g his laws uit
. Th e tr ia l c ourt ha s b ro a d d isc re tio n to dis mis s a su it b ro ug ht p ur su a nt t o chapte r 14, and we re view that dismissal under an a buse of discr etion standard. W hit e v . S tat e , 37 S.W. 3d 56 2, 56 3 (T e x. Ap p. —B e a umo nt 200 1, no pe t.) ; McCollum v. Mt. Ararat Baptist Church , 98 0 S. W.2 d 5 35 , 5 36 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th D ist .] 19 98 , n o pet .). A tri a l c ourt a bu se s it s d iscretion whe n it acts in an ar bitrary or unre asonable manner or ac ts without refer ence to any g uiding r ules or princ iples. Downer v. Aquam arine Operators, Inc

. , 701 S.W .2d 238, 241 (Tex. 1985). A cle ar f

ailure by the trial court to analy

ze or apply

the law c orre ctly

also constitutes an abuse of discre tion. W alker v . Pack

er , 827 S.W .2d 833, 840 (Tex. 1992).5 I n her motion to dismis s, Rodrigue z-Mendoza a lleg ed two independe nt gr ounds on which the district c ourt could have based its dismissal. First, Rodrigue z-Mendoza alleg ed that Hunt omitted information s tating that one of his previous lawsuits had been di smissed as frivolous. See Tex. Ci v. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.004(a )(2) (D). Sec ond, R o d ri g uez-Mendoza alleg ed that Hunt failed to file a

cer tified copy o f h i s i n m at e trust acc ount statement. Se e id . §§ 14.004(c) , .0 06 (f ). We ne e d no t c on sid e r the fo rm e r c on te nti on , be c a us e we c on c lud e that th e dis tr ic t c ourt did not abuse it s discretion in finding that Hunt failed to file a cer tified copy of hi s inmate trust acc ount state me nt. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt do e s no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in dis mis sin g a su it f or fa ilure to c omp ly with the proce dural req u i re m ents of cha pter 14. See Sc ott v. Gallagher , 209 S.W .3d 262, 265 ( T e x. A p p . — H o u s t o n[1 s tD i s t
. ] 2 0 0 6 , n o pe t.) ; W il lia ms v . B ro wn , 33 S.W .3d 410, 412 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2000, no pet.). We over rule Hunt’s third issue.
P rej udi ce I n h is f

ourt h is su e , H un t c on te nd s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in dismi ssi nghis c a se with prejudice . Dismissal with prejudice func tions a s a fina l determination on the mer its of a ca se. Mossler v. Shields , 8 18 S.W. 2d 75 2, 75 4 (Tex . 1 99 1) ; Ba rc ro ft v . Co un ty

of F an nin , 118 S.W .3d 922, 927 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. denied) . A dismissal for failure to comply with the rules g overning the filing of suits broug ht pur suant to c hapter 14 is not a ruling on the merits. Hughes v. Masse y , 6 5 S. W.3 d 7 43 , 7 46 (T e x. Ap p. —B e a umo nt 2 00 1, no pe t.)
. Th e re fo re , the dis mis sa l in this case should have been w ithout prejudice. Lentworth v. Tr ahan , 9 8 1 S.W .2d 720, 723 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 1998, no pet.). We sustain Hunt’s four th issue.Subseq u en t t o t he filing of this appea l, Hunt filed with this C ourt a “ Motion to Take 1 Judic ia l N oti c e .” I n th e mot ion , H un t li sts va ri ou s r ule s, statut e s, c a se s, and

a lle g e d f a c ts r e la te d to thi s p ro c e e din g and

Hunt’ s p re vio us laws uit s a nd a sk s th is C ourt

to t a ke “ jud ic ia l no tic e ” of

the se ite ms. An

a pp e llate c ourt ’s decis ion to t a ke jud ic ia l no tic e of a fa c t on a pp e a l is g e ne ra lly d is c r e ti o n ar

y . T ra n v . F ior e nz a , 934 S.W .2d 740, 742-43 (Te x . App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no wr it) ; Ma rti ne

z v. City of S

an An ton io , 768 S.W .2d 911, 914-15 (Te x . App.—San Antonio 1989, no writ) (c iting Wellborn, Judicial Notice Unde r Article II of the Tex as Rules of Evidenc e, 19 St. Mary ’s L .J . 1, 20 (1987)) . To be the pr oper subjec t of judicial notice, a fac t must be one not subject to rea sonable dispute and “ca pable of acc urate and ready deter mination by

resor t to sources whose a ccur acy

cannot r easona

bly be questioned.” Of

fic e of P ub . U

til . Co un se l v . P ub lic Ut il. Comm’n , 878 S.W .2d 598, 600 (Tex. 1994) (quot i n g T ex . R. Evid. 201(b)). F urthermor e, the reque sting pa

rty must supply the court with the nece ssary information. Id . (quoting Tex. R. Evi d. 20 1( d) ). We have c on sid e re d the ite ms in Hunt’ s mo tio n a nd de te rm ine d th a t: ( 1) many of the ite ms are no t th e pr op e r s ub

je c t of jud ic ia l no tic e ; (2 ) oth e r ite ms c on ta in e ith e r inc omp le te or ina c c ur a te information; and (3) none of the items affe ct ou r re s o l ution of the specif ic issues Hunt raise d on appea l. Accor dingly , we e x erc ise our discre tion and deny Hunt’s motion.
6 CO NC LU SION We overrule Hunt’s fir s t, second, a nd third issues and sustain his fourth issue. 1 Acc ording ly , we r efor

m the judgme nt to provide that the ca use is dismiss ed without pr ejudice. A s ref ormed, the judg ment of the district cour t is affirmed.

______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pembe rton and Waldrop Reforme d and, as r efor

med, af firmed on Motion for Rehe aring Filed: August 29, 2007