### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 09 -0 00 41 -C V

______________________________ DONAL D RAY WI L L I AMS, Appellant

V. COX NEWSP APERS, I

NC., ET AL ., Appellee s

On Appea l from the 71st J udicial District Court

Har rison County , Texas Trial Court No. 08-1068

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C

. J. , C a

rt e r a n d M o s e l e y , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by J ustice Carte rWil liams refe rs to the fe male as his wife . The re cord d oes not conc lusively establish the 1 nature of their r elationship. We d o n ot h a ve a reco rd of the c ri min a l c a se a g a ins t Will iams i n c on ne c tio n w iththi s 2 inc ide nt. Ac c or din g to Wi lli a ms, though, he w a s c ha rg e d w itha g g ra

vate d a ssa

ult wi th a de a dly we a po n, bu t pl e a de d g uil ty

to p os se ssi on

of a fi re a rm a s a fe lon purs ua nt t o a ple a a g re e me nt. 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON I nmate and pr o se plaintiff, Dona ld Ray Wil liams, appea ls the t rial court's or der dismissing his lib e l a c tio n a g a ins t de fe nd a nts The Marshall News Messenger , Co x Ne ws pa pe rs , Inc ., a nd

Phi l L atham, editor of The Marshall News Messenger . B e c a us e we c on c lud e the tr ia l c ourt did no t a bu se its discretion by

deter mining that Willi ams' suit was frivolous pursuant to Section 14.003 of the Texas Civi l Practice and Remedie s Code, we a ffirm the tria l court' s order

. See T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 14.003 (Ve rnon 2002). I. F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL HISTORY A. Inc ide nt , A r ti c le , a nd D ispo sit ion of F ir stSuit Af te r a c on fr on ta tio n in vo lvi ngWilli a ms, his g ir lf ri e nd , he r t

wo y oungc hil dr e n, a nd , it 1 seems, anothe r, unidentified man, Wil liams w as arr ested and cha rg ed with ag g ravated assault. On 2 December 6, 2006, The Ma rsh all Ne ws M esse nge r, owned by

Cox Newspa

pers, Inc., printed a

n

a rt ic le re po rt ingthat Will iams h a d h e ld h is g ir lf ri e nd a nd he r c hil dr e n h os tage at gunp oin t. Def endants maintaine d that the information it printed was taken from a press rele ase pr epar ed by the Mars ha ll Po lic e De pa

rt me nt co nc e rn ing the inc ide nt. Willi a ms ma int a ine d tha t the re po rt e d f a c ts

wer e fa bricated and sue d The Marshall News Me s s enger , Co x Ne ws pa pe rs , Inc ., a nd

L a tha m,3

a lle g inglib e l and

de fa ma tio n. Willi a ms f

ile d h is o ri g ina l a c tio n O c tober 29 , 20 07 , und e r c a us e number 07-1042. Williams moved to dism is s his suit wit hout prejudice , a motion the trial court g rante d May

8, 2008. B. Second Action F iled, Dismissed with Pre judice Wil liams filed hi s second suit alleg ing libel with respe ct t o the ar ticle Novembe r 21, 2008. Def endants, Cox Newspaper s, I nc., The Marshall News Messenger , a nd L a tha m, m ov e d to dis mis s Wil liams' suit on J anu ar y 2 9 , 2009, pursuant to Section 14.003 of the Te x as Civil P rac tice and Remedies C ode. The trial court gra nted t hat m otion Fe bruar

y 5, 2009, concluding that the suit was statut or ily fr ivo lou s und e r a ll the c on sid e ratio ns fo un d in Se c tio n 1 4. 00 3( b) a nd dis mis se d the c a se without a hear ing a

nd with prejudice

. Th e tr ia l c ourt ' s o rd e r d ism iss ingthi s c a se fo c us e d o n tw o ba se s: a pp lic a tio n of the statut e of limitations and applicatio n of the " fair r eport" privileg e. More specific ally , the trial cour t conclude d that Wil liams' c laims wer e b a rre d by the applica

ble one- y ear

statute of limitations and that the newspa

per ha d no duty

under the "f

air re port" privileg e to investig ate the f acts c ontained in the Marsha ll Pol ice De partment' s press re lease . Ba sed on i ts application of proce dural a nd substantive law, the tr ia l c ourt

c on c lud e d tha t Williams' c la im' s r e a lis tic c ha nc e of su c c e ss w a s sl ig ht, that hi s

c la im h a d n o a

rgua ble ba sis in l a w o r i n fa c t, t hat Will iams c ou ld n ot p ro ve fa c ts i n s up po rt of his claim, and that the claim wa s substantially simil ar to a

previous cla im filed by

Wil liams beca

use the claim ar ose fr om the same ope rative f acts.4

C. Contentions On Appeal On appea l, a s in their motion to di smiss, Defenda nts assert that Willi ams' action is barr ed by the applica

ble statute of limitations. They also contend the "f

air report" privileg e would apply here to protect them fr om liabilit y for de famation. Williams maintains that the statute of limitations was tol le d a nd that th e fi lin g of his fi rs t suit wo uld be the pr op e r c a lc ulatio n o f t he statut e of

lim itatio ns . He a lso ma int a ins tha

t th e do c tr ine of

e qu ita ble tol lin g sh ou ld ap ply he re a nd that he s ho uld be he ld to l e sse r s tand a rd

tha n a lic e ns e d atto rn e y . B e c a

us e , h e c on te nd s, the re a re iss ue s c on c e rn ingbo th the a pp lic ati on of the statut e of lim itatio ns a nd

the a pp lic a tio n o f t

he fa ir re po rt pr ivi le g e , h is s uit ha s a re a lis tic c ha

nc e of su c c e ss, that it, at lea st, ha s an ar g ua ble ba sis in f

a c t or in l a w that w ou ld make dismissal improper unde r Section 14.003. II. AP P LICABLE LAW A. Appli cation of Chap ter 14 Chapter 14 of

the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code applies "to a suit broug ht by an inmate in a district, county , justice of the pe ace , or small cla i m s co u rt in which an a ffidavit or

un sw orn decl arat io n of inab il it y to pay cos ts is fi led by th e in mat e." T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 14.002 (Ve rnon 2002). An " inmate" is "a person housed in a secur e cor rec tional fac ility ." T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 14.001(3) ( Ver non 2002). I n his pro se plea dings, Wil liams ide ntifies himself by his inmate identification number a nd states that he is pre sently confin ed i n t he Te x as De partment of Criminal Just ice–Institut ionalA " c la im, " a s u se d in Cha pte r 1 4 o f t

he Te xas C ivi l Pr a c tic e a nd Re me die s Co de , r e fe rs to 3 "a caus e of a cti on govern ed b y th is chap ter ." T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 14.001(1).

5 Di vis ion , e sta

bli sh ingthat he is an in mate wi thi n th e me a nin g of Se c tio n 1 4. 00 1( 3) . H e fi le d h is motion for leave to proc eed in f or ma pa up e ris with a ffidavit of indige ncy in support and trust fund

s tate me n t, a n d th e tr ia l c o u rt g r a n te d h is mo ti o n , e s ta b li s h in g th a t e le me n t o f Se c ti o n 1 4.002. To the e xte n t W il li a ms c o n te n d s h is s u it is n o t a " c la im " a n d

is n o t g o v e r

n e d b y Ch a p te r 1 4 , we 3 disag ree and will apply

the proc edure provided in Chapter 14. B. Dism issal u nder Section 14.003 A trial cour

t may dismiss a cla im if the trial court de t er m i n es t he cla im is frivolous. T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 1 4

. 0 0 3 ( a ) ( 2 )

. Se c ti o n 1 4

. 0 0 3 o f th e T e xa s Ci v il Pr a c ti c e and Remedies Code g oes on to provide f our consider ations to guide t h e t ri al court's de termination whether a cla im is frivolous. The trial court may consider w

hether : (1 ) t he c la im' s r e a lis tic c ha

nc e of ult imate su c c e ss i s sl ig ht; (2 ) t he c la im h a s n o a

rgua ble ba sis in l a w o r i n f

a c t; (3) it is clea

r that the pa

rty cannot pr ove fa cts in support of the cla im; or (4 ) t he c la im i s su

bs tanti a lly

sim ila r t o a pr e vio us c la im fi le d by the inm a te be c a us e the c la im a

ri se s f ro m th e same op e ra

tiv e fa c ts. T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 14.003(b).6

C. Stand ard of Review We reviewthe trial court' s dismis sal of an indig ent inmate' s claim pursuant to Section 14.003 of the Te x as Civil P rac tice and Re medies Code for an abuse of discre tion. Amir-Sharif v. Mason , 24 3 S.W. 3d 85 4, 85 6 (T e x. Ap p. — Da lla s 2 00 8, no pe t.) ; Gowan v. Tex. D ep't of C riminal Justice , 99 S.W .3d 319, 322 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, no pet.). III . DI SCU SSIO N A. Lim it at ion s Is sue One must bring a libel suit " not later than one y ear afte r the da

y the ca use of a ction acc rues." See T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C ODE ANN . § 16 .0 02 (a ) ( Ve rn on 20 02 ); Ro be rts v . D av is , 160 S.W .3d 256, 261 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, pet. denied) . The unde rly ing suit i n t he instant ca se wa s filed on Nove mber 21, 2008. The article in question was published on Dec ember 6, 2006. Wil liams' c ontentions on appea l seem to focus on three positions: (1) the running of limit ations is measured f rom the filing of his first suit; (2) the doctrine o f equitable tolling of l i m i t a t i o n s s h o u l d a

p p l y h e r e ; a n d ( 3 ) h e s h o u l d b e h e l d t o a l e s s e r s t a n d a r d t h a n a l i c e n s e d a t t o r n e y. We will address ea ch of those positions in turn. A lawsuit that is voluntarily abandone d does not interrupt the r unning of the statute of limit ations. Bailey v . Gardner , 154 S.W .3d 917, 920 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pe t.). Ther efor e, if a suit is dismissed, the statute of limit ations is not tol led for a ny new plea ding f

iled. Cunningham v. Fox , 879 S.W. 2d 21 0, 21 2 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th D ist .] 19 94 , w ri t de nie d) ; Cro ne n v . Ci tyWil liams does not asser t that the di scover

y rule would operate i n such a w ay that any other 4 date should be use d to beg in the t olling of the statute of limitations. See W hit e v . Co le , 880 S.W .2d 292, 294–95 (Tex. App.—Be aumont 1994, writ denied)

. 7 of Pasadena , 835 S.W .2d 206, 210 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t D ist.] 1992), disapproved on other grounds by Lewis v. Blake , 876 S.W .2d 3, 4 (Tex. 1994). So, when a c ase is dismissed, limi tations run fr om the time the cause of ac tion accr ued until the date of

the re filing. Cunningham , 879 S.W .2d

a t 21 2; Cronen , 835 S.W .2d at 210. Her e, then, the a pplicable limitations period is calculated without refe renc e to Will iams' first suit. See Cunningham , 879 S.W .2d at 212. The limitations period beg an to run on De cembe r 6, 2006, when the article was published, 4 and continued to r

un without interruption until it e x pired on Dec ember 6, 2007, one y ear afte r the article was published. Thre e-hun d red f ifty -one da

y s—near ly

one y ear —afte r the statute ha d run, Wil liams refiled his lawsuit. See Bailey , 154 S.W .3d at 920. Willi a ms f

ur ther c on te nd s th a t e ve n if the statut e of

lim itatio ns ha d e xpir e d p ur su a nt t o

ca lc u lati o n f

r o m t h e d a te h e r e f

il e d h is s u it , th e d o c tr in e o f

e qu it a b le to ll in g s h o u ld

a p p ly h e re. Eq uit a ble tol lin g a

pp lie s in sit uatio ns wh e re a

c la ima nt a c tiv e ly

purs ue d his o r h e r j ud ic ia l r e me die s, but filed a de fec tive pleading during the statutory period, or w here a c o m p lainant was induc ed or tricked by his or her a dversa

ry ' s misconduct into allowing f iling dea dlines to pass. Id. a t 92 0; Sm ith v. J- Hite, Inc

. , 127 S.W .3d 837, 843 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2003, no pet.)

. Willi a ms d oe s n ot c on te nd a nd do e s n ot s ho w that he a c tiv e ly purs ue d h is j ud ic ia l r e me die s, bu t fi le d a de fe c tiv e ple a din g duri ngthe statut or y pe ri od . L ike wi se , n oth ingin t he re c or d s ug g e sts8

that Def endants tricke d or somehow induce d Wil liams into allowing the limit ations period to expi re. Th e do c tr ine of e qu ita

ble tol lin g do e s no t op e rate on the se fa c ts to tol l the a pp lic a ble on e -y e a r s ta tut e of limitations. A p ro se lit ig a nt is he ld to the same sta nd a rd s a s a

lic e ns e d atto rn e y

a nd mus t c omp ly

wi th applicable laws and r

ules of proc edure

. Mansfiel d State Bank v . Cohn , 573 S.W .2d 181, 184–85 (T e x. 19 78 ); Am ir- Sh ar if

, 243 S.W .3d at 856. Wil liams' la ck of " leg al training " doe s not mean that we f oreg o the fundamental proc edura l mechanisms in place

. That W illiams i s untrained in the law do e s n ot m e a n th a t he e njo y s an e xten de d li mit a tio ns pe ri od in w hic h to br inghis su it. Be cause the l imitations period had expired when W illiams ref iled his lawsuit, his cause of action wa s barr ed as a m at ter of la w unless equitable tolling would apply . The c ircumstance s surrounding Wil liams' voluntar y dismiss al of his claim do not support application of the doctrine of equitable tolling. See Bailey , 154 S.W .3d at 920. Nor doe s his lack of e x perie nce in the la w extend the limitations period in which he could bring suit. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by deter mining the suit was frivolous since it proper ly conclude d that the s tatute of li mitations had run. B. On the Mer its Willi a ms al so c ha lle ng e s the tr ia l court ' s c on c lus ion s a s to the su bs tanti ve law i nv olv e d in the ca se. Althoug h the limitations issue on its own would support the trial court' s determination that the suit was frivolous, we will address this contention to be thoroug h.The Houston Fourteenth Court provides a thoroug h list of cases, noting the nature of the 5 publication trig g eringthe privileg e in ea ch ca se. See Go ss , 252 S.W .3d at 655. 9 The " fair r eport" privileg e is thoroug hly addre ssed under

circ umstances similar to the instant

case in Go ss v . H

ou sto n Co mm un ity

Ne wsp ap e rs , 252 S.W .3d 652, 655–56 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 20 0 8 , n o pet.). " The publication of defamatory matter c oncer

ning a nother in a r eport of an of ficial a ction or proc eedingor of a meeting open t o the public that dea ls with a matter of public conce rn is privileg ed if the r eport is ac curate and c omplete or a fair a bridgm ent of the

occu rren ce rep ort ed. " Id. at 6 5 5 (q u o t i n g Fr e e do m C om mu ns ., In c . v . S

ote lo , No. 11-05-00336- CV, 2006 Tex. App. L EXIS 5 1 3 2 , at *9 (Te x . App.—Eastland June 15, 2006, no pet.) (me m. op.)). Of fi c ia l st a te me nts fr om l a w e nforcem ent , in c lud ingpr e ss r e le a se s, tr ig g e r a pp lic a tio n o f t

his privileg e. Id. So long as the publication at issue fa irly and ac curately re p orts the contents of the 5 law enf orce ment s t at em en t without embellishm ent, the publication is privileg ed, eve n if the underlying f

acts being reporte d on are untrue or de famatory

. Id. Put another wa y , the ac cura cy

of the publication is de termined not by compar ing it to the actua l f acts but to t h e l aw en forc ement statement upon which the publication is based. Id. The Go ss c ourt

re je c te d th e a

pp e ll a n t ' s c o n t e n t i on/su g g e sti on that th e ne ws pa

pe r h a d th e du ty to conduct an inde pendent investig ation of the e vents detailed in the she riff' s depar tment. Id. at 656. Th e new sp aper

was "ent it led to rel y

on off ici al i nfo rm ati on fro m t he p ol ice ." Id. Willi a ms d oe s n ot c on te nd that th e a rt icl e is no t a c c ur a te a nd c omp le te or

is n ot a fa ir abridg ement of the occur renc e repor

ted in the police depar

tment's news rele ase. Rather, h e, l ike10

Goss, maintains that the newspa per ha d a duty

to investigate the fa cts detailed in the ne ws rele ase. W e a g r e e w i t h o u r

s i s t e r c o u rt i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e n e w s p a p e r , o n th e s e f

a c t s , h a d n o s u c h d

u t y. Wit h that, the t rial court did not abuse its discretion when it deter mined that Wil liams' la

wsuit was frivolous. His position wit h respe ct to the fa ir repor t privileg e does not pos e an ar gu ab l e leg al or fa c tua l is su e e ve n if

the su it w e re no t barr e d b y the statut e of

lim itatio ns . We ov e rr

ule Willi a ms' contention. IV . CO NC LU SION Ne ith e r t he lim itatio ns iss ue no r t

he fa ir re po rt pr ivi le g e iss ue pr e se nt a

n a rgua ble ba sis in law o r i n fa c t. Th e tr ia l c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n wh e n it de te rm ine d th a t Will iams' laws uit

wa s fr i v o l o u s an d d i s m i s s ed i t

. Ha v i n g o v erru l ed W i l l i am s ' co n t en t i o n s , we af fi rm t h e tr i al co u rt 's order dismiss ing Williams' law suit with prejudice.

J ack Ca rter J ustice Date Submitted: J uly 20, 2009 Date D ecide d: J uly 31, 2009