S ee Te x. R. App
. P. 47. 4. 1 

## CO URT OFAPPEA LS

SE COND DIST RIC TO F T E XAS FORT WORTH NO. 2
- 0 9
- 4 4 3
- CV
M I CH AE L L OU G AR R E T T AP P E L L ANT V
. BA RRY L. M A C H A A PPELL EE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 30TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F W I CH I TA CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A p p e l l a n t M i c h a e l Lo u G a rre tt a p p e a l s from the tr i a l co u rt ’s d i sm i ss a l w i th p rej u di ce of

hi s cl ai m s agai nstA ppel l ee Bar r y L. M acha. G ar ret tbr i ngs t hree i ss u e s a l l e g i n g erro r i n the tr i a l co u rt ’s ac ti o n s w i th res p e c t t o h i s m o ti o n to re c u s e , M a c h a ’s m o ti o n t o d e c l a re G a rre tt a v e x a ti o u s l i ti g a n t, a n d th e c o u rt’s d is m is s a l o f

G a r re t t ’s c la im s w it h p re ju d ic e . B e c a u s e w e h o ld t h a tG a r re t td idT e x . C o d e C ri m . P ro c . A n n . a rts . 2 .0 3 , 3 .0 4 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 5 ). 2 T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 3 9 .0 3 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ). 3 2 notm ee thi s burden on h i s m ot i on t o rec us e, t hatt he t r i al co urtdi d noter r by d e c l a ri n g h i m a v e x a ti o u s l i t ig a n t , a n d th a t s o m e o f h i s a rg u m e n ts a re i n a d e q u a tel y b ri e fed , w e affi rm the tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t. I
. Bac kground G ar ret ti s an i nm at e c ur rent l y i nca rce rat ed i n t he T exa s D epa rt m entof C rim in a l J u s tic e . M a c h a is th e d is tr ic t a tt o rn e y fo r W ic h ita C o u n ty . In Sept em ber

2009 , aft er

M ac ha had de cl i ned t o br i ng c r i m i na l ch arges of con sp i rac y a nd a t t em pted m urder ag ai ns ta doc t or

w or ki ng a tt he pr i so n, G ar ret tf i l ed a “pet i t i on for rem oval ” agai nstM acha, seeki ng M acha’ s rem oval from of

f i ce. G ar ret tal l eged t hatM acha had c o m m i tted act s of of f i ci al m i sc on du ct a nd negl ec tof duty un der

art i cl es 2. 03 and 3. 04 of t he cod e o f cr i m i nal proce dure an d a ct s of of f i ci al oppres si on i n vi ol at i on of pe nal co de 2 s e c t i on 39. 03. 3 M acha answ ered, al l egi ng am ong ot her t hi ngs t hatG ar ret t ’ s sui tw as

“ w h o lly fr iv o lo u s o r

m a lic io u s a n d fa il[e d ] t o s t a t e a n y le g a l o r fa c t u a l c la im s u p o n w h i c h re l i e f c a n b e g ra n te d u n d e r a n y s ta tu to ry o r c o n s ti tu ti o n a l th e o ry .” W i t h M acha’ s answ er , he i ncl uded a m o ti on t o di sm i ss on t he groun d t hat G ar ret t had kno w i ngl y f i l ed a f al se de cl arat i on of

hi s l i t i gat i on hi st or

y. M ac haS ee Te x. Ci v. Pra c . & Rem
. Code A nn. § 14. 004 ( Ver no n 2002) 4 ( requ i r i ng a n i nm at e proce edi ng pro s e t o fi l e a n a f f i dav i tor

de cl arat i on rel at i ng to th e i n m a te ’s p re v i o u s p ro s e fi l i n g s ). N o. 02
- 08
- 00 18 6- C V , 2 0 0 8 W L 5 1 1 5 2 2 7 , a t * 4 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 5 D e c . 4 , 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t.) (m e m . o p .). I d. a t*3. 6 3 a s s e rt e d t h a tG a r re t tw a s re q u ire d t o f ile a d e c la ra t io n id e n t if y in g a n y o t h e r

s u it t hathe had previ ousl y broug htpro se; st at i ng t h e o p e rat i ve fact s for w hi ch re lie f w a s s o u g h t ; lis t in g t h e c a s e n a m e , n u m b e r , a n d c o u rti n w h i c h t h e s u it w as brought ; i den t i f yi ng eac h part y nam ed i n t he su i t ; and st at i ng t he res ul tof t he sui t . M acha st at ed t hatG a rret tw as aw are of t hi s requi rem entand yet 4 i ncl ude d w i t h hi s pet i t i on an af f i dav i tt hatdoe s nots etouthi s l i t i gat i on hi st or y. T o d e m o n strate G a rre tt’ s a w a ren e ss o f t h e d e c lara ti o n req u i rem e n t, M ac ha at t ac hed a cop y of t hi s cou rt ’ s opi ni on i n G ar ret tv. Trapp in w h ic h t h is 5 cour tu ph e l d a t r i a l c ou rt ’ s d i s m i s s a l o f Gar re t t ’ s c l a i m s a ga i ns ta no t her defendan tfor

fai l ure t o com pl y w i t h t he decl arat i on requi rem ent . W e not ed th a t G ar ret thad acknow l edged i n hi s pet i t i on t hathe w as requi red t o f i l e an a ffi d a v i t re l a ti n g to p rev i o u sly fi l e d law su i ts, th a t G a rre tt h a d fai l e d to i d e n ti fy and de sc r i be num erous ca us e n um bers, an d t hatt he t r i al co urtc oul d ha ve th e refo re di sm i ssed G ar ret t ’ s pro se sui ton t he groun d t hathe had f i l ed an af f i davi tt hathe knew w as f al se. 6T e x . C i v . P ra c . & R e m . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 .0 5 1 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 2 ). 7 4 G ar ret tt hen f i l ed a m ot i on t o recuse J udg e R ober tP
. B rot hert on, t he t r i al j udg e assi gned t o t he cause. G ar ret tal l eged t ha t J udg e Brot hert on had been t he t r i al j udge i n Trapp an d t ha tJ ud ge B rot hert on ha d pe rso nal bi as an d prej udi ce agai nstG ar ret tbecause he had di sm i ssed G ar ret t ’ s cl ai m s i n t hat ca se . G ar ret t as se rt ed t hat Judg e Brot hert on, “w hi l e d et er m i ni ng t he m er i t s of [ M acha’ s] M ot i on t o D i sm i ss [ G ar ret t ’ s] p et i t i on, w i l l be consi der i ng ‘ evi dence’ i n s upportof

t he M ot i on, of

w hi ch he hi m se l f

ha d pe rso nal i nvol vem entof c re a ti n g a n d n o w b e i n g u s e d b y [M a c h a ] to s u p p o rt h i s M o ti o n .” Judg e Brot her t on decl i ned t o vol untar i l y recuse hi m sel f and refer red G ar ret t ’ s m ot i on t o Judg e J ef f W al ke r , t he regi ona l ad m i ni st rat i ve j udge
. Ju dge W a l k e r h e l d a h e a r i n g , a tw h i c h Ga r re t twa s p re s e n t , o n Oc t o b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 9
. At t he con cl us i on of t he hea r i ng, Judg e W al ke r s t at ed t hathe w as goi ng t o de ny t he m ot i on t o rec us e. Judge W al ke r di d not , how eve r , en t er t he order

de nyi ng t he m ot i on u nt i l a l m os ta m on t h l a t e r , o n Nov e m be r 25, 2009
. O n N o v e m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 9 , M a c h a fi l e d a m o ti o n to d e c l a re G a rre tt a v e x a tio u s li tig a n t u n d e r c iv il p ra c tic e a n d re m e d ie s c o d e s e c tio n 1 1 .0 5 1
. In 7 t he m ot i on, he al so as ked t he cou rtt o de em G ar ret t ’ s su i t“ fr i vol ous an d brought for t he pur pos es of ab us i ng . . . j udi ci al res ource s” unde r gov er nm entT e x . G o v ’t C o d e A n n . § 4 9 8 .0 0 4 5 (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 9 ). 8 5 code sect i on 4 98
. 00 45 i n order to author i ze t he depar t m entof cr i m i nal j ust i ce t o forfei tG ar ret ’ s good con duct t i m e. 8 O n N ove m ber

1 6, 2 009 , G ar ret tf i l ed a m ot i on for vol unt ar

y di sm i ss al of h i s c l a i m s a g a i n s t M a c h a . T h re e d a y s l a te r, G a rre tt fi l e d a re s p o n s e t o M a c h a ’s m ot i on t o de cl are h i m a vex at i ous l i t i gan t , op po si ng t he m ot i on “ i n t he eve nt t hat ” t he t r i al co urtha d notr ul ed on G ar ret t ’ s m ot i on t o di sm i ss or t hatM ac ha h a d o p p o s e d t h e m o t io n . O n N o v e m b e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 9 , J u d g e R o g e r T o w e r y h e ld a h e a ri n g o n M a c h a ’s m o ti o n to d e c l a re G a rre tt a v e x a ti o u s l i ti g a n t. G a rre tt w as not pres entatt he hea r i ng. M ac ha di d noti nt roduc e a ny e vi den ce att he h e a ri n g ; rath e r, h e rel i e d o n e v i d e n c e th a t h e h a d su b m i tted to th e co u rtw i th hi s m ot i on. A t t he concl usi on of t he hear i ng, Judg e To w er y ent ered an order d e c l a ri n g G a rre tt to b e a v e x a ti o u s l i ti g a n t a n d a n o rd e r d i s m i s s i n g G a rre tt’s cl ai m s agai nstM acha w i t h prej udi ce. II. A n a ly s is G a rre tt’s M o ti o n to R e c u s e th e T ri a l C o u rt I n hi s fi rsti ssue, G ar ret t argues t hat Judg e W al ker er red by f i ndi ng t hat he had fai l ed t o s how by a p repo nde ranc e o f t he evi den ce t hatJud ge Bro t h e rt o n s h o u l d b e re c u s e d fro m t h e c a s e . Ga r re t ta rg u e s t h a theS ee T e x . R . C i v . P . 1 8 b (1 )(b ), 1 8 b (2 )(a ), a n d 1 8 b (2 )(b ). 9 S ee Tex. R. A pp. P. 38. 1( i ) (st at i ng t hatan ap pel l ant ’ s i ss ues m us tbe 10 s u p p o rte d b y a rg u m e n t w i th c i ta ti o n s to a u th o ri ty ). 6 dem onst rat ed t hatJudg e Brot hert on had an i nt eresti n t he subj ect m at t er , t hat hi s i m par t i al i t y m i ght be reasonabl y q u e sti oned , and t hathe had personal know l edge of

d i sput ed evi denti ar

y fact s. To supp or thi s m ot i on, G ar ret trel i ed

9 o n th e fa c t th a t J u d g e B ro th e rto n h a d p re v i o u s l y d i s m i s s e d o n e o f G a rre tt’s p ro se l aw su i t s for

nonc om pl i anc e w i t h s ec t i on 14. 004
. Thus , G ar ret targue d, J u d g e B ro t h e rt o n w o u ld b e “ e x a m in in g ‘e v id e n c e ’ ‘ o f h is o w n m a k in g ,’ ” a n d in o rde r t o rul e i n G a rre tt’ s fa v o r i n this c a s e , th e j u d g e “w o u l d h a v e to

‘ contradi ct ’ hi s ow n f i ndi ngs i n hi s di sm i ssal ” of G ar ret t ’ s previ ous case. A p p el l an tci t es to n o c ase t o su pp orthi s prop os i t i on t ha ta tr i al co urt ’s ru l i n g i n a p ri o r, u n re l a te d c a s e w o u l d , b y i ts e l f, d e m o n s tra te th a t th e c o u rt’s i m part i al i t y i n a pen di ng ca se m i ght be rea so nab l y qu es t i one d, t hats uch a r ul i ng dem ons t rat es pe rso nal kn ow l edg e o f di sp ut ed evi den t i ar

y fac t s ati ss ue i n t he c u rre n t p e n d i n g c a s e , o r th a t th e c o u rt h a s a n i n te re s t i n th e s u bj e c t m a tte r. 10 Furt her m ore, t he evi den ce rel i ed on by G ar ret t
— Judg e Brot hert on’ s pr i or r ul i ng — do es notes t abl i sh t he nee d for Jud ge Brot hert on’ s rec us al by a prepo nde ranc e o f

t he evi den ce . The st and ard for rec us al on a n assert i on of b ia s o r im p a rt ia lit y is w h e t h e r a re a s o n a b le p e rs o n in t h e c o m m u n it y w o u ldK i rby v. C hapm an , 9 1 7 S .W .2 d 9 0 2 , 9 0 9 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 11 1 9 9 6 , n o w ri t). See i d. ( n o ti n g tha t a rea so n a b le p e rso n “m u st b e aw a re o f t h e ‘ fac ts 12 o f l i fe ’ th a t s u rro u n d th e j u d i c i a ry ” ). G u l f M a ri ti m e W a re h o u s e C o . v . T o w e rs , 858 S. W
. 2d 556, 558 (Tex. 13 A p p .— B e a u m o n t 1 9 9 3 , w ri t d e n i e d ). 7 b e l i eve t hat t he j udg e’ s recusal i s requi red W e rej ect t he argum ent t hat a 11
reasonabl e person w oul d dou bt t hat a j udg e coul d be fai r and i m part i al i n a case i nvol vi ng t he di sm i ssal of a cl ai m fo r fail ure t o com pl y w i t h procedu ral r ul es m erel y be ca us e t hatj udge ha d previ ous l y di sm i ss ed a c l ai m broughtby t he sam e pl ai nt i f

f o n th e s a m e groun d. A nd for a t r i al j udg e t o be di squal i f i ed 12 based on an “i nt erest ” i n th e s u bj e c t m at t er , t he j udg e m usthave a di rect p e c u n i a r

y o r p ro p e rt y i n t e re s ti n t h e s u bj e c tma t t e r o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n . No 13 evi dence show s t hatJ udg e B rot hert on has any pecu ni ar y or proper t y i nt erest i n M acha’ s rem oval from of f i ce. W e over r ul e G ar ret t ’ s fi rsti ssue. V exa t i ous Li t i gan tD ec l arat i on I n Gar ret t ’ s se con d i ss ue, he argue s t hatt he t r i al co urter red att he hea r i ng on M ac ha’ s m ot i on t o de cl are hi m a vex at i ous l i t i gan tby al l ow i ng M ac ha t o a rgue hi s m ot i on, prec l udi ng Gar ret tfrom be i ng pres entatt he hea r i ng, notal l ow i ng G ar ret tt o argue hi s w r i t t en oppos i t i on t o t he m ot i on, an d refusi ng t o consi der

G ar ret t ’ s w r i t t en opp osi t i on att he hear i ng. H e al so arguesSee N el l N at i ons For i st v. V ang uard Under w r i t ers I ns . Co. , 141 S. W
. 3d 14 668 , 670 (Tex. A pp. — S an A ntoni o 2004, no p et . ) (app l yi ng, as a m at t er of f i rsti m pres si on, an ab us e o f di sc ret i on s t and ard t o a t r i al co urt ’ s det er m i nat i on u n d e r s e c ti o n 1 1 .0 5 4 o f th e c i v i l p ra c ti c e a n d re m e d i e s c o d e ). S ee T e x . C i v . P ra c . & R e m . C o d e A n n . § 1 1 .0 5 4 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 2 ). 15 8 th a t th e tri a l c o u rt a b u s e d its d i s c re ti o n b y g ra n ti n g M a c h a ’s m o ti o n to d e c l a re h im a v e x a t io u s lit ig a n ta n d b y im p o s in g s a n c t io n s a g a in s th im
. 14 I n suppo rtof

t hi s i ss ue, G ar ret tf i rstargue s t hatt he evi den ce of fered by M ac ha i n s upportof hi s m ot i on t o ha ve G arret tde cl ared a v exa t i ous l i t i gan t doe s not sh ow t hat , i n t he se ven - yea r pe r i od prec edi ng t he dat e o f t he m ot i on, G ar ret t had com m enced, prosecut ed, or m ai nt ai ned at l east f i ve pro se su i ts t hatha d be en f i nal l y de t er m i ned adverse l y t o hi m or det er m i ned t o be fr i vol ous or g roundl es s. He con t end s t hatt he ca se s i nt roduc ed by M ac ha w ere n ot 15 cases deci ded adv ersel y t o h i m and t hat , for t he m ostpart , t hey w ere cases t hatw ere di sm i ssed on l y because he coul d not pay a fi l i ng fee. W e di sagree. M acha at t ached evi dence dem onst rat i ng t hat G ar ret t i s a prol i f i c f i l er of pro se a c ti o n s in b o t h fe d e ra l a n d s ta te c o u rt. O n l y o n e o f th e tri a l c o u rt o rd e rs i ncl ude d by M ac ha w as a di sm i ss al of G ar ret t ’ s cl ai m for

fai l ure t o pay a f i l i ng fee . M ac ha i ncl uded ev i den ce of ot her s ui t s f i l ed by Gar ret t , i ncl udi ng fi ve previ ous l i t i gat i ons co m m enc ed, pros ec ut ed, or m ai nt ai ned by hi m pro s e i n t he s e v e n y e a rs b e fo re c o m m e n c in g t h is a c t io n — t h re e in fe d e ra l c o u rta n d tw o inS ee i d. § 1 1 .0 5 4 (1 )(A ). 16 I d. § 1 1 .0 5 3 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 2 ). 17 I d. 18 I n re Z. L
. T. , 1 2 4 S .W .3 d 1 6 3 , 1 6 5 (T e x . 2 0 0 3 ); see al so Ford v. 19 C l enden nen , N o. 0 9
- 04- 002 57- C V , 2004 W L 296495 3, at*1–2 ( Tex. A p p .— B e a u m o n t D e c . 1 6 , 2 0 0 4 , n o p e t. ) (m e m . o p .) ( h o l d i n g tha t an i n m a te 9 sta te c o u rt
— th a t w e re e i th e r de term i n e d to b e w i th o u t m e ri t o r di sm i ss e d w i th prej udi ce unde r

ch apt er

14. Thus , M ac ha m ethi s burde n und er s ec t i on 11. 054 ( 1) (

A )
. The t r i al co urtt herefore d i d notab use i t s di sc ret i on by 16 decl ar i ng G ar ret tt o be a vexat i ous l i t i gant based on M acha’ s evi dence. G a rre tt n e x t a rg u e s th a t b e c a u s e th e tri a l c o u rt h e l d a n e v i d e n ti a ry hea r i ng on M ac ha’ s m ot i on and bec aus e M ac ha w as pres ent at t he he ar i ng, G ar ret thad “an absol ut e r i ght t o be presentas w el l
. ” H e fur t her cont ends t hat b e c a u s e h e w a s t h re a t e n e d w it h s a n c t io n s , h e w a s e n t it le d t o re c e iv e s p e c if ic n o t ic e o f

t h e c o n d u c ta lle g e d t o b e a c t io n a b le a n d t h e s t a n d a rd b y w h ic h h is con duc tw oul d be as se ss ed and t o ha ve an opport uni t y t o be he ard. A t r ia l c o u rtm u s th o ld a h e a r in g o n a m o t io n t o d e c la re t h a ta p la in t if f is a vexat i ous l i t i gant. A ttha t h e a r i ng, t he t r i al cour tm ay consi der evi dence, 17 e i th e r w ri tten o r ora l , i n c lud i n g ev i d e n c e p res e n ted b y w i tn e ss o r affi d a v i t. 18 B u ta n in m a t e d o e s n o th a v e a n a b s o lu t e rig h tt o a p p e a r in c o u r tin a c iv il c a s e . I f a n i n m a te re q u e s ts to b e p re s e n t a t a h e a ri n g , th e tri a l c o u rt

19d o e s n o t h a v e a n a b s o l u te ri g h t to a p p e a r a t a h e a ri n g o n a m o ti o n to d e c l a re

h i m a v e x a ti o u s l i ti g a n t). Z. L
. T. , 124 S. W
. 3d a t165. 20 I d. a t166. 21 10 c o n s i d e rs s e v e ra l fa c to rs i n b a l a n c i n g p re s e rv a ti o n o f th e c o rre c ti o n a l s y s te m ’s i nt egr i t y agai nstt he pr i soner ’ s r i ght of access. A n i nm at e request i ng a bench

20
w ar rant has t he burden t o j us t i f y t he nee d for

hi s pres enc e i n a ci vi l ac t i on, an d t he t r i al courti s notrequ i red t o i nde pen den t l y i nqui re i nt o t he nec es si t y of t he i nm at e’ s appearance. 21 N ot hi ng i n t he rec ord i n t hi s ca se s how s t hatG ar ret trequ es t ed to be presentatt he hear i ng (or t h a t h e re q u e st ed t o proceed by any ot her m eans, su c h as b y affi d a v i t, d e p o s it i o n , o r t e l e p h o n e ), l e t al o n e m e t his b u rde n to j u sti fy the n e e d for h i s p res e n c e . A c c o rding l y , th e tr i a l co u rtd i d n o t ab u se i ts di sc ret i on by notar rang i ng for G ar ret t ’ s pres enc e a tt he hea r i ng. G ar ret tal so cont ends t hatt he t r i al co u rtv i o l at ed t he l aw and j udi ci al canon s because the hear i ng con st i t ut ed an ex par t e com m uni cat i on betw een M a c h a a n d th e tri a l c o u rtan d b e c a u se G a rre tt w a s n o t al l o w e d to b e p res e n t. A s w e s t a t e d a b o v e , a n in m a t e h a s n o a b s o lu t e rig h tt o b e p re s e n tin a c iv il ac t i on, an d a t r i al co urtge neral l y m ay hol d a h ea r i ng w i t houtt he pres enc e o fS e e i d
. a t165– 66. 22 11 t he i nm at e unl ess t he i nm at e h as est abl i shed t he necessi t y of hi s appearance. 22 A c c o rd in g ly , w e h o ld t h a tb e c a u s e G a r re t td id n o te s t a b lis h t h e n e c e s s it y o f h is app ea ranc e, t he t r i al co urtdi d notvi ol at e t he l aw or j udi ci al ca nons by hol di ng th e h e a ri n g w i th o u t h i m . G ar ret tfur t her

argues t hat he had an absol ut e r i ght t o have hi s response t o M ac ha’ s m ot i on c ons i dered by t he t r i al cou rt but t hat hi s res pons e w as not m ent i oned att he hear i ng, w hi ch show s t hati tw as notconsi dered by t he t r i al cour t . A tt he st arto f t he hear i ng, t he t r i al cour tst at ed t hati tw oul d t ake j u d i c i a l n o ti c e o f

t h e c o n te n ts o f i ts fi l e . T h e re c o rd s h o w s th a t G a rre tt’s re s p o n s e o p p o s in g M a c h a ’s m o t io n w a s o n f ile w it h t h e t r ia l c o u rta tt h e t im e o f t h e h e a ri n g . W e rej e c t G a rre tt’ s a rgu m e n t t h a t t h e tria l c o u rt ’s fai l u re to m ent i on G ar ret t ’ s response dem o n strat es t hatt he t r i al cour tdi d not consi der i t. G ar ret tal so argue s t hat bec aus e M ac ha so ughts anc t i ons ag ai ns thi m , he h a d a rig h tt o (1 ) re c e iv e s p e c if ic n o t ic e o f t h e c o n d u c t a lle g e d t o b e a c t io n a b le and t he st andard by w hi c h h i s conduct w oul d be assess ed and ( 2) an o p p o rtu n i ty to b e h e a rd
. B y “ s a n c ti o n s ,” w e a s s u m e G a rre tt re fe rs to M a c h a ’s as ki ng t he t r i al co urtt o de em G ar ret t ’ s ac t i on fr i vol ous for pur pos es ofS ee Te x. Gov ’ tCod e Ann
. § 49 8. 0045. 23 S e e M e rri m a n v . S e c . I n s . C o . o f H a rtfo rd , 1 0 0 F .3 d 1 1 8 7 , 1 1 9 1 ( 5 th 24 C i r . 1 9 9 6 ) (d is c u s s in g s a n c t io n s u n d e r ru le 1 1 o f

t h e fe d e ra l ru le s o f c iv il p ro c e d u re ); Baul ch v. Joh ns , 7 0 F
. 3d 8 13 , 8 17 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 5) (d i s c u s si ng s a n c ti o n s u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 2 7 ). M er r i m an , 100 F. 3d a t1192
. 25 12 aut hor i zi ng t he depar t m ento f cri m i nal j ust i ce to forfei tG ar ret t ’ s good con duct t i m e under

sect i on 4 98
. 00 45 of the go ver nm entco de. G ar ret tdi d not rai se 23 any due proce ss argum ent s i n t he t r i al co urtw i t h res pec tt o t he l os s of hi s good cond uctt i m e. W i th re sp e c t to G a rre tt’ s a rgu m e n t t h a t he h a d to b e g i v e n an o p p o rt u n i ty to be he ard, no t hi ng i n se cti on 4 9 8
. 0 0 4 5 or i n the r ul es o f ci vi l p ro c e d u re requi re t he t r i al cour tt o hold a n a c tu a l hear i ng before deem i ng an act i on as fr iv o lo u s u n d e r

t h a ts e c t io n . G a r re t t c it e s t o tw o fe d e ra l c a s e s in s u p p o rto f h is argum ent , bot h of

w hi ch hol d t hatfor

s anc t i ons av ai l abl e u nde r fede ral l aw , t he par t y bei ng sanct i oned m ustbe gi ven an op por t uni t y t o respond , b utnei t her ho l ds t ha ta n a c t ua l h e a r i ng i s re qu i re d. One c ase no t e s t ha tfor r ul e 11 24 s a n c ti o n s , a n a c tu a l h e a ri n g i s n o t re q u i re d
. T h u s , w e c o n s tru e G a rre tt’s 25 a rg u m e n t a s a n a rg u m e n t th a t th e tri a l c o u rt w a s re q u i re d to c o n s i d e r h is res pons e t o M ac ha’ s m ot i on. A s di sc us se d above , t he rec ord i ndi ca t es t hatt he tri a l c o u rt d i d c o n s i d e r G a rre tt’s re s p o n s e .S ee G ar ret tv. W i l l i am s , 2 5 0 S .W .3 d 1 5 4 , 1 5 8 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 26 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t .) (a d d re s s in g a n d re je c t in g G a r re t t ’s c la im t h a th is p e t it io n fo r w r it 13 A s for G ar ret t ’ s argum entrespect i ng no t i ce of t he cond uctcom pl a i ned of and t he st andard by w hi ch hi s conduct w oul d be j udg ed, he recei ved a d e q u a te n o ti c e . M a c h a h a d as k e d the tr i a l co u rtto d e c l a re G a rre tt’ s a c ti o n to b e fri v o l o u s , a n d h e i n c l u d e d a n a rg u m e n t th a t th e re w a s n o re a s o n a b le probab i l i t y t hat G ar ret t w oul d prevai l and expl ai ned i n w hatm anner G ar ret thad fai l ed t o com pl y w i t h chapter four t een of t he ci vi l pract i ce and rem edi es code. M a c h a ’s m o ti o n th u s g a v e G a rre tt n o ti c e o f th e c o n d u c t a l l e g e d a g a in s th im a n d th e s ta n d a rd b y w h i c h h i s c o n d u c t w o u l d b e a s s e s s e d . A c c o rd i n g l y , w e over r ul e G ar ret t ’ s second i ssue. D i sm i ssal of

G ar ret t ’ s C l ai m s W i t h Prej udi ce I n G ar ret t ’ s t hi rd i ss ue, he argue s t hatt he t r i al co urtab us ed i t s di sc ret i on by di sm i ss i ng hi s cl ai m s w i t h prej udi ce and er red by a l l ow i ng M ac ha t o a rgue fo r d i s m i s s a l w i th p re j u d i c e a fte r d e n y i n g G a rre tt’s m o ti o n fo r v o l u n ta ry di sm i ss al , by prec l udi ng Gar ret tfrom be i ng a tt he hea r i ng, an d by notal l ow i ng G ar ret tt o argue agai nstdi sm i ssal w i t h prej udi ce. G ar ret tf i rstargue s t hathi s pet i t i on for rem ova l w as a cr i m i nal pe t i t i on, not a “sui t , ” and, t herefore, hi s pet i t i on for rem oval w as no tsubj ectto chapt er fo u rt e e n . W e h a v e p rev i o u sly a d d res se d this q u e sti o n i n a s i m il a r co n tex t. 26o f m a n d a m u s w a s n o t a “ s u i t” fo r p u rp o s e s o f c h a p te r fo u rte e n ).

T e x . C i v . P ra c . & R e m . C o d e A n n . § 1 4 .0 0 2 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 2 ). 27 G a rre tt , 2 5 0 S .W .3 d at 1 5 8 (q u o ti n g B l a c k ’s L a w D i c ti o n a ry 1 4 7 5 ( 8 th 28 e d . 2 0 0 4 )). S ee T e x . L o c . G o v ’t C o d e A n n . § 8 7 .0 1 5 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 8 ); I n re Ba z an, 29 25 1 S. W
. 3d 39 , 42 (Tex
. 20 08 ) ( noti ng t hat proceedi ngs for rem o v a l u nder s u b c h a p t e r

B o f c h a p t e r

e ig h t y -s e v e n , w h ic h in c lu d e s s e c t io n 8 7 .0 1 5 , a re c iv il p ro c e e d i n g s ); S ta te e x re l . D i s h m a n v . G a ry , 163 Te x. 565, 359 S. W
. 2d 456, 45 8 ( 196 2) ( not i ng t hati n a n ous t er s ui t( unde r

for m er s t at ut e) , “ [ e] xce pt w h e re o t h e r

w is e p ro v id e d b y s t a t u t e , t h e r u le s o f p ra c t ic e g o v e r n in g o t h e r c iv il c a s e s c o n tro l ” ). S e e also G a rre tt , 250 S. W
. 3d a t158. 30 14 C h a p t e r fo u rt e e n o f

t h e c iv il p ra c t ic e a n d re m e d ie s c o d e a p p lie s t o a s u it broug ht by an i nm at e w ho has f i l ed an af f i davi t or decl arat i on of i nabi l i t y t o pay cos t s. A “s ui t ” i s “‘ any proce edi ng by a part y or pa rt i es ag ai ns tan ot her i n a 27 cour tof

l aw . ’ ” A nd con t rar y t o G ar ret t ’ s cont ent i on t hathi s act i on w as 28
c r i m i na l i n na t ure , h e f i l e d a p e t i t i on for M a c ha ’ s re m ov a l u nd e r s e c t i on 87. 015 of the l ocal g over nm entcode, w hi ch i s a ci vi l proceedi ng, nota cr i m i nal one. 29 W e rej ec tG ar ret t ’ s argum enttha thi s pet i t i on w as nota “s ui t ” and w as not su bj ec tt o c hap t er

fourt ee n. 30 G ar ret tnextargue s t hatt he t r i al co urtab us ed i t s di sc ret i on by al l ow i ng M a c h a to a rg u e h i s m o ti o n to d i s m i s s w i th p re j u d i c e a fte r d e n y i n g G a rre tt’s o w n m o ti o n to d i sm i ss h i s cl a i m s w i th o u t pre j u d i c e . A p l a i n ti ff h a s a n ab so l u teT e x . R . C i v . P . 1 6 2 ; B H P P e tro l e u m C o . I n c . v . M i l l a rd , 800 S. W
. 2d 31 8 3 8 , 8 4 0
– 4 1 (T e x . 1 9 9 0 ). T ra v e le rs I n s . C o . v . J o a c h im , No. 08- 0941, 2010 W L 19330 22, a t*2 32 (T e x . M a y 1 4 , 2 0 1 0 ); S cot t& W hi t e M em ’ l H osp. v. Sch exni der , 940 S. W
. 2d 5 9 4 , 5 9 6 (T e x . 1 9 9 6 ). S c o tt & W h i te , 9 4 0 S .W .2 d a t 5 9 6
– 9 7 ; c f . V i l l a fa n i v . T re jo , 251 33 S
. W
. 3d 46 6, 47 0 (Tex
. 20 08 ) (st at i ng t hata n onsui tw oul d obv i at e t he need for t he di scovery sanct i on of excl udi ng a w i t ness because t he pur pose of t hat s a n c ti o n w a s to p ro te c t th e i n te g ri ty o f th e p ro c e e d i n g , n o t to p u n i s h a p a rty ). S ee T e x . R . A p p . P . 3 8 .1 (i ). 34 15 r i g h t t o t a k e a n o n s u i t s o l o n g a s t h e d e fe n d a n t h a s n o t m a d e a c l ai m for a ffi rm a ti v e rel i e f. B u t e v e n a fter a n o n su i t, a tr i a l co u rtretains j u ri sd i c ti o n to 31 e n t e r a f in a l ju d g m e n t , a n d a t r ia l c o u rtm a y c o n s id e r c o lla t e ra l m o t io n s w h ile i tret ai ns pl enary pow er , even i f t hey are f i l ed aft er a nonsui t . The S uprem e 32 Cou rto f

Te xa s h a s h e l d, for e xa m pl e , t ha ta t r i a l c ou rtm a y r ul e o n a r ul e 13 m o t io n fo r

s a n c t io n s a ft e r

a n o n s u itis f il e d a n d t h a tt o h o ld o t h e r w is e w o u ld fr us t rat e t he pol i cy beh i nd ci vi l proce dure r ul e 13 by al l ow i ng a pa rt y t o e sc ape sa n c ti o n s b y n o n su i ti n g th e a g g ri e v e d p a rty . G a rre tt m a k e s n o arg u m e n t t o 33 su p p o rth i s c o m p l a i n t t h a t t h e tr i a l co u rterred b y d i sm i ss i n g h i s c l a i m s w i th prej udi ce , an d h e m ak es no argum entas t o w hy t he cou rtco ul d notr ul e o n M ac ha’ s pen di ng m ot i ons des pi t e t he nons ui t . Nor doe s G ar ret tci t e a ny aut hor i t y i n suppo rtof such argum ent s. A ccordi ngl y, w e hol d t hatt hese argum ent s are i nad equ at el y br i efed. 34S ee i d. 35 16 G ar ret tal so co nt end s t hathi s pet i t i on ha d m er i t , but h e m akes no argum entand ci t es no aut hor i t y i n suppo rtof t hi s cont ent i on. Thu s, w e al so o v e rru l e th i s a rg u m e n t a s i n a d e q u a te ly b r ie fe d
. W e o v e rru l e G a rre tt’s th i rd 35 i ssue. I I I
. Concl us i on H a v i n g o v e rru l e d G a rre tt’s th re e is s u e s , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.

P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: D A U PH I N O T, J. ; LI V I N G STO N , C. J. ; an d GA RD N ER, J. DEL I VERE D: Aug us t31, 2010