### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-0 6 -00 517 -CV

M yc al A nt oin e P oo le , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY , 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 05- 752- C368 , HO NORAB LE J. F . CLAWSO N JR. , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N My cal Antoine Poole, a

n inmate conf

ined in the Institut ional Division of the Texas De pa rtme nt o f C ri min a l Justi c e , fi le d wh a t he sty le d a “ Counte r Cla im” a g a ins t the State of Te xas. As best we can discern from his pleading s, Poole soug ht injunctive relief and damag es under various instruments of unclea

r nature and orig in—signe d by Poole and L orra ine Poole, Poole’s mother and “a uthorized repre sentative” —that he conte nds cre ate debt obligations on the part of the State. Th e State fi le d a

ple a to t he jur isd ic tio n, wh ic h w a s g ra nte d. Poo le app eal s fr om t he dis mis sa l. We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt.
DI SCU SSIO N Poo le ’s a pp e llate br ie f d oe s n ot s umm ari ze t he fa c ts und e rl yingthi s a

pp e a l and fa ils to m ake “ a

c le ar a nd c on c ise argume nt fo r th e con tent ion s ma de , w itha pp ro pr iate c itatio ns toI n his brief, Poole also asks this Court to take “ma ndatory judicial notice” of Cle arfi eld 1 Trust Co. v. United States , 318 U.S. 363 (1943), a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that “[t] he rig hts and duties of the Un i t ed States on commer cial pape r which it issues ar e g overne d by

fede ral rather than [state] law.” Id . at 366. We have c onsidered Cle ar fie ld and de te rm ine d th a t it

is n ot a pp lic a ble to t his a pp e a l. Poo le re qu e sts tha

t t he distr ic t c ourt

iss ue a “ Pe rp e tua l Inju

nc tio n” a g a ins t th e State 2 pr oh ibi tin g it f

ro m “ do ing bu sin e ss in a

ny name .” He a lso a sk s th e dis tr ic t c ourt to p ro hib it the State fr om “ fu rt he r re str a ini ng [Poo le ] o f h is l ibe rt y ” and to o rd e r t he State “ to h ave ‘A L L ’ o f [Po ole ’s ] Property returne d to him.” 2 authorities and to the r ecor d.” See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(f) , (h). How ever , in the interest of justice,
we wi ll a dd

re ss what a

pp e ar t o b e the me ri ts o f P oo le ’s a pp e a l. I n his brief, Poole questions the authority of the trial judg e to “r efus[e] jurisdiction” and “impair [] the obliga

tion of contrac ts.” We construe these questions a s a cha lleng e to the district 1
c o u rt ’ s g r an to f

t h e S t a t e ’ s p l e a

t o t h e j ur i s d i c t i o n , t h e b a s i s o f w h i c hw a s s o v e r e i g ni m mu n i ty. Poole’s claim implicat es t he State’s sove reig n immunit y : he see ks damag es ag ainst the State, to enforc e contr actua l rig hts ag ai n s t t h e S t at e, and to other wise control state action. See Tex as 2 Nat u r al Res. Conservation Comm’n v . IT-Davy , 7 4 S. W.3 d 8 49 , 8 53 -5 5 ( Te x. 20 01 ); Director of Dep’ t of Agric. & Env’t v . Printing Indus. Ass’n , 6 00 S.W. 2d 26 4, 26 5 ( Te x. 19 80 ). Hi s su it thus cannot be ma intained abse nt leg islative consent or statutory waiver , and he alleg es neither
. I T- D avy , 7 4 S. W.3 d at 85 3- 54 . T he dis tr ic t c ourt thu s d id n ot e rr

in s us ta ini ngthe State ’s ple a to the jurisdiction.
CO NC LU SION

We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he dis tr ic t c ourt .3 ____________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: Jul y

18, 2007