## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2- 08 -48 0- CV R E GI NAL D D AL E P E T E R S AP P E L L ANT V . RO BERT C RA N K, D A V I D CO N W A Y, A PPELL EES RO BERT C H RI STI A N , LE SLI E CR A N E, RA LPH H . W A LTO N , JR. , A LL EN HAR DI N, AN D R OB E R TY OUN G

----- ----- -- NO. 2 - 08 -48 1- CV R E GI NAL D D AL E P E T E R S AP P E L L ANT V . LAR RY G O W I N , D A V I D CO N W A Y, A PPELL EES R OB E R TY OUN G, AL L E N H AR DI N, AND R OB E R TCH R I S T I AN

----- ----- --2 NO. 2 - 08 -48 2- CV R E GI NAL D D AL E P E T E R S AP P E L L ANT V . C LI N T PU LL M A N , RO BERT A PPELL EES CR ANK , AL L E N H AR DI N, AN D R OB E R TCH R I S T I AN

----- ----- -- NO. 2 - 08 -48 3- CV R E GI NAL D D AL E P E T E R S AP P E L L ANT V . V I N C EN T M ESSI N A , STU A RT N EI L, A PPELL EES K E L T ON C ONN E R , J UDYW AT S ON, ROBERT CHRI STI AN , J . L . E AST, AL L E N HARDI N, ROB E RTCR ANK, DA VI D CO NW AY , DA VI D TUC KER, L E S L I E CR ANE , R OB E R TY OUN G, TH ELBERT M I LL SA P, JO H N N Y R O SE, JOHN NY M I L L ER, J UD Y EL AI N PET ERS , ANG E L A C HR I S T I NE P E T E R S , AN D R E G IN A L D D A L E P E T E R S , III

----- ----- -1 ... See Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 3 NO. 2 - 08 -48 4- CV R E GI NAL D D AL E P E T E R S AP P E L L ANT V . G REG A BBO TT, J. E. M A YO , A N D A PPELL EES R OB E R TCH R I S T I AN

----- ----- - NO. 2 - 08 -48 5- CV R E GI NAL D D AL E P E T E R S AP P E L L ANT V . SETH BY RO N D EN N I S A PPELL EE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 3 55TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F HO O D CO UN TY

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

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I n t hi s con so l i dat ed app ea l , A ppe l l antRegi nal d D al e P et er s app ea l s t he t r i al court ’ s or der s di sm i ssi ng hi s pr o se, i n f or m a pauper i s sui t s agai nst4

A ppe l l ee s G r eg A bbott , Set h B yr on Denni s, Ral ph H. W al t on, Jr . , V i nce nt M e s s i n a , K e l to n C o n n e r, J u d yW a t s o n , J .L . E a s t, R o b e rt Y o u n g , T h e l b e rt M i l l sap, Jo h n n yR o se, John ny M i l l er , Ro bertC r ank, D avi d C onw ay, A l l en H ar di n, J. E. M ayo, R obert C hr i st i an, C l i nt Pul l m an, Lar ry G ow i n, Lesl i e C r ane, St uartN e i l , Da v i d T u c k e r , J u d yE l a i n P e t e r s , Re g i n a l d Da l eP e t e r s , I I I , a nd A n g e l a C h ri s ti n eP e te rs . W ew i l l a ffir m . Pet er s i s an i nm at e i nca r ce r at ed i n t he W i l l i am P. Cl em ent s U ni toft he I ns t i t ut i ona l D i vi si on oft he Texa s D epa rt m entofCr i m i nalJus t i ce . He f i l ed t he fi rst of s i xp e ti ti o n s i n J a n u a ry 2 0 0 8 , a l l c o m p l a i n i n g a b o u t a c h a i n o f i n c i d e n ts t h a to c c u r r e d b e t w e e n D e c e m b e r2 0 0 3 a n d M a y2 0 0 4 . P e t e r sa lle g e d t h a tin l at e Dece m ber2003 , H ood Count y l aw en f or ce m entof f i ce r s as sa ul t ed hi m an d e n d a n g e r e d h isc h ild w h e n t h e ye x e c u t e d a w a r r a n tf o rh isa r r e s ta th is r es i den ce . He cl ai m ed t hatar ound t he sa m e t i m e, he i nf or m ed l aw en f or ce m ent per sonnel about t hou sands of dol l ar s’ w ort h of unsecur ed per sonal pr opert y at hi s r esi dence and t hatt he pr opert y w as st ol en w hi l e he w as i n j ai l . Pet er s al so al l eged t hati n M ay 20 04 , aft erh e h ad been ar r est ed agai n and w hi l e he w as i n j ai l , hi s bonds m an and pos si bl y hi s so n a nd e x- w i f e s t ol e t hous and s of dol l ar s’ w ort h ofpr opert y f r om hi s r esi dence. The c ent r alco m pl ai nt s r unni ng t hr ough P eter s’ s f i l i ngsar e t hatt he A ppe l l ee s per pet r at ed a f r aud an d vi ol ated hi s con st i t ut i ona l r i ght s by2 ... T h et r ia l c o u rta p p o in t e d a n a tt o r n e yt o re p r e s e n tP e t e r sin t h isa p p e a l,

butaft ert he br i ef s w er e f i l ed, Pet er s f i l ed num er ousm ot i ons , oneco m pl ai ni ng ofa conf l i ctofi nt er est bet w een hi s appo i nt ed att or ney and hi m . W e gr ant ed hi s r equestt hathi s app oi nt ed coun selbe w i t hdr aw n, deni ed al l ot herr equest ed r e lie f , a n d g a v eh im a n o p p o rt u n it yt o f ile a n e w b r ie f . P e t e r sd id n o tt im e lyf ile a br i ef ; so, as w e had noti f i ed hi m t hatw e w oul d i n t he absence ofnew br i ef s, w e r el i ed on t he br i ef s al r eady on f i l e t o r esol ve t he appeal s. 5 com m i tt i ng o ra s s i s t i ng i n t hec om m i s s i on o ft hec om pl a i ne d- ofa c t so rf a i l ed t o ei t heri nvest i gat e hi s com pl ai nt s r egar di ng t he st ol en pr opert y orf i l e char ges on t hos e com pl ai nt s. A l t hough i ti s noten t i r el y c l ea rf r om t he r ec or d, al l oft he A ppe l l ee s se em t o ha ve bee n i nvol ved i n s om e w ay at som e p oi ntdur i ng t he event s t hatf or m t he basi s oft he sui t s. P e t e r ss t a t e d in t h ep e t it io n st h a th eb r o u g h ta “ T e x a sS t a t eT o rtC la im ” p u r s u a n tt o a rt ic le s1 0 0 .0 0 1 t h r o u g h 1 0 0 .1 0 9 o ft h e“ T e x a sS t a t eT o rtC la im s A ct ” aga i ns tt he def end ant s i n t hei ri ndi vi dua l ca pac i t i es — “s o a s t o ov erco m e any t ype of cl ai m of i m m uni t y. ” I n conj uncti on w i t h t he t ortcl ai m s, he al l eged t hatt he def end ant s vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s gua r ant ee d hi m unde rt he Fourt h, Fi ft h, Si xt h, Ei ght h, an d Fourt ee nt h A m end m ent s t o t he U ni t ed St at esConst i t ut i on. Pet er s so ughtda m age s oft en t o f i f t y m i l l i on do l l ar s, an d heaf f i r m ed i n t he p e ti ti o n sth a t h efi l e d th el a w s u i tsp ro s ea n d i n f o rm a p a u p e ri s . T h etri a l c o u rt d i sm i ss e d h i s s u i ts a n d d e c l a red h i m a v e x a ti o u s l i ti g a n t. 2 Pet er s’ s su i t s ar e gove r ned by cha pt er14 oft he ci vi l pr ac t i cean d rem e d i e s c o d e . C h a p ter 1 4g o v e rns su i ts b rou g h t byan i n m a te i n a d i stri c t,6

coun t y, j ust i ce oft he peace, or sm al l cl ai m s courti n w hi ch t he i nm at e f i l es an a ffid a v i to ru n s w o rn d e c l a ra ti o n o f i n a b i l i tyto p a yc o s ts . T e x . C i v . P ra c . & R e m . C o d eA n n . § 1 4 .0 0 2 (a ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 2 ); Gar re ttv. Bo rden , 283 S. W . 3d 8 5 2 , 8 5 2 (T e x . 2 0 0 9 ); Gar rettv. W

i l l i am s , 250 S . W . 3d 1 5 4 , 157 ( Tex. A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t.); Gar rettv. Trapp , No. 02- 08- 00186

- CV , 2008 W L5 1 1 5 2 2 7 , a t * 1 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth D e c . 4 , 2 0 0 8 , n o p e t.) (m e m . o p .). T h el e g i slatu re e n a c ted this sta tu te t o co n tr o l the fl o o d o f f ri v o l o u s l a w su i ts bei ng f i l ed i n Tex asco urt s by p r i so n i nm at esbe ca us e t hes e s ui t s con su m e m a n yv a l u a b l ej u d i c i a l re s o u rc e sw i th l i ttle o ffs e ttin g b e n e fi ts . W illiam s , 250 S .W .3 d a t 1 5 7 ; Bi

sh op v. La wson , 1 3 1 S . W . 3 d 5 7 1 , 5 7 4( T ex . A p p .— F o rt W ort h 2 00 4, pet . deni ed) . The pu r pose ofchapt er14 i s nott o pun i sh i nm at es f o rf ilin g c la im sb u tt o a id t h ec o u rtin d e t e r m in in g w h e t h e ra n in m a t e ’s c la im i sfri v o l o u s . W

illiam s , 250 S. W . 3d a t157. A co urtm ay di sm i ssa cl ai m i fthe cou rtf i ndst hatt he al l ega t i on of pove rt y i n t he af f i dav i toruns w or n de cl ar at i on i s f al se , i ft he cl ai m i s f r i vol ous o r m a l i c i o u s , o r i f th e c o u rt fi n d s th a t th e i n m a te fi l e d a n a ffid a v i t o r u n s w o rn dec l ar at i on r equ i r ed by t hi s cha pt ert hatt he i nm at e kne w w asf al se . Tex. Ci v. Pr ac. & R em . C ode A nn. § 14 . 00 3( a) ( V er non 20 02 ) . I n det er m i ni ng w het her a c l a i m i sfri v o l o u so r m a l i c i o u s , th ec o u rt m a yc o n s i d e r w h e th e r th ec l a i m ’s r e a lis t ic c h a n c eo fu lt im a t es u c c e s siss lig h t , w h e t h e rt h ec la im h a sn o a r g u a b le3 ... W hi l e di sm i ssali s r evi ew ed und eran abuse ofd i scr et i on, the i ssue as

to w h e th e r t h e re w a s a n arg u a b l eb a sis i n l a w i s a l e g a l q u e sti o n tha t w e re v i e w d en o v o . See I n re Humphreys , 8 8 0 S .W .2 d 4 0 2 , 4 0 4(T e x .), c ert. denied, 5 1 3 U .S . 9 6 4(1 9 9 4 ) ( e x p la in in g t h a tq u e s t io n so fla w a r ere v ie w a b le 7 b a s isin la w o rin f a c t , w h e t h e r it is c le a r t h a tt h ep a rt yc a n n o tp r o v ef a c t sin su pportoft he cl ai m , and w het hert he cl ai m i s su bs t ant i al l y s i m i l art o a pr evi ous cl ai m f i l ed by t he i nm at e b ec aus e t he cl ai m ar i se s f r om t he sa m e o per at i ve fa c ts . Id . § 1 4 .0 0 3 (b ). T ri a l c o u rtsa reg i v e n b ro a d d i s c re ti o n to d e te rm i n ew h e th e r a n i n m a te ’s i n f or m a pau per i s su i t sh oul d be di sm i ss ed bec aus e ( 1) pr i so ner s hav e a s t r ong in c e n t iv et o lit ig a t e ; ( 2 ) t h eg o v e r n m e n t b e a r s t h ec o s to fa n in f o r m a p a u p e r is su i t ; ( 3) s anc t i onsar e n otef f ec t i ve; an d ( 4) t he di sm i ss alo funm er i t or i ous cl ai m s ac cr uest o t he ben ef i tofs t at e o f f i ci al s, co urt s, an d m er i t or i ous c l a i m a n ts . Montanav. Patter son , 89 4 S . W . 2d 81 2, 81 4– 15 ( Tex . A pp. — Ty l er 1 9 9 4 , n o w ri t); se e al soPittm an v. D ep’tof Cr i m i nal Jus ti ce –I ns t. Div. , No. 14- 9 9 -0 0 6 9 6 -C V , 2 0 0 0 W L1 7 5 2 7 9 9 , a t * 2 ( T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] N ov. 30 , 20 00 , no pet . ) ( not desi gnated f orp ubl i cat i on) ( r easoni ng t hata t r i al courtm ay di sm i ss an i nm at e sui to n t he court ’ s ow n m ot i on w i t hou ta f or m al m ot i on t o di sm i ssf r om t he d efen da nt ) ( ci t i ng Hi cks v. Brysch , 989 F. Supp. 79 7, 81 5 ( W . D . Tex. 19 97 ) ) . W e t hus r evi ew a t r i al court ’ s di sm i ss a l o fan i nm at e’ s cl ai m unde rch apt er14 unde ran ab us e o fdi sc r et i on s t and ar d. 3d en o v o ). 8

W illiam s , 2 5 0 S .W .3 d a t 1 5 8 ; Thom asv. W i chita Gen. Hosp. , 9 5 2 S . W . 2d 9 3 6 , 9 3 9 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 1 9 9 7 , p e t. d e n i e d ). A tr i a l co u rtab u se s i ts di sc r et i on i fi tac t s ar bi t r ar i l y, ca pr i ci ous l y, an d w i t houtr ef er enc e t o gui di ng ru l e so r p ri n c i p l e s . D owner v. A quam ar

i ne Operators, I

nc. , 701 S. W . 2d 238, 2 4 1

– 4 2 (T e x . 1 9 8 5 ), cert. denied, 476 U . S. 1159 ( 198 6) . W e w i l l af f i r m t he d is m i s s a l i f i t w a sp ro p e r u n d e r a n yl e g a l th e o ry . Jo hn s o nv. L yn augh , 796 S .W .2 d 7 0 5 , 7 0 6

– 0 7 (T e x . 1 9 9 0 ); Bi rdo v. A m ent, 8 1 4S . W . 2 d 8 0 8 , 810 (T ex . A pp .— W a c o 1 9 9 1 , w ri t d e n i e d ); Rhodesv. Pol and, No . 1 2

- 0 8

- 0 0 0 6 0

- CV , 200 8 W L 4 4 914 68, at*1–2 ( Tex. A pp. — Tyl erO ct . 8, 2008 , pe t . de ni ed) ( af f i r m i ng t r i alcourt ’ s or der

— w hi ch di sm i ssed i nm at e’ s chapt er14 sui tas f r i vol ou s— on the gr ound t hatgov er nm entco de se ct i on 508. 044 1 doesnot c o n fl i c t w i th a rti c l eIV , se c ti o n 1 1 o f th eT e x a sc o n s ti tu ti o n ). In th i sc a s e , th etri a l c o u rt c o u l d h a v ec o n c l u d e d t h a ta ll o f P e te rs ’s cl ai m s ar e f r i vo l o u s orm al i ci ous because t hey have n o ar guab l e basi s i n l aw . See T e x . C i v . P ra c . &R e m . C o d eA n n . § 1 4 .0 0 3 (a ), (b )(1 ). S p e c i fi c a l l y , P e te rs d i d n o t d i re c t th e tri a l c o u rt, n o r d o e s h en o w d i re c t th i sc o u rt, to a n ys ta tu to ry orcom m on l aw cause ofac ti on f orf ai l ur e t o i nvest i gat e and pr osecut e an4 ... T h e F i fth C i rcu i t h a s r e a so n e d th a t th e a l l e g e d fai l u re t o in v e sti g a te

com pl ai nt s and t o t ak e a ct i on i n r es pons e t o t hem doesnotpr ovi de a bas i s f or a c i v i l ri g h ts s u i t. Robi ns on v. U. S. , Fe d. Burea u of I nvesti gati on , 185 Fed. A p p x . 3 4 7 , 3 4 8 (5 th C i r. 2 0 0 6 ).

5 ... Sect i on 1983 pr ovi desa r em edyw hen an y pe r so n a ct i ng un derco l or ofs t at e l aw dep r i ves ano t her ofr i ght s, pr i vi l ege s, ori m m uni t i espr ot ec t ed by th eU n i te d S ta te sC o n s ti tu ti o n o r l a w s . 4 2 U .S .C .A . § 1 9 8 3 (W e s t 2 0 0 3 ). 9 al l eged cr i m i nal of f ense. In t h ea b s e n c eo fs u c h a n a c t io n , P e t e r s ’s c la im s 4 h a v en o b a s i si n l a w. To t he ext entt hatPet er s assert ed cl ai m s und er t he Tex as To rtC l ai m s A ct ( “TTCA ”) , t he TTC A w ai vesa gove r nm ent aluni t ’ s i m m uni t y f r om l i abi l i t y a nd s u i t i n t h re en a rro w l yd e fi n e d a re a s : (1 ) p ro p e rtyd a m a g ea n d p e rs o n a l i n j u ry ca us ed by t he us e ofpubl i cl y ow ned aut om obi l es ; ( 2) per so nali nj ury c aus ed by a c ondi t i on orus e o ft ang i bl e p er so nalor real p r opert y; an d ( 3) cl ai m s ar i si ng outofpr em i se s def ec t s. Tex . Ci v. Pr ac . &Rem . Code Ann. § 101. 021 ( V er non 2 0 0 5 ), § 1 0 1 .0 2 2 (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ), § 1 0 1 .0 2 5 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 5 ); T ex . D ep ’t of Par ksan d W

i ldl if e v. Mi randa , 1 3 3 S .W .3 d 2 1 7 , 2 2 5 (T e x . 2 0 0 4 ). P e te rs ’s cl ai m s se ek i ng t o i m pos e l i abi l i t y aga i ns t A ppe l l ee s do not f i tw i t hi n a ny o ft he abo ve t hr eel i m i t ed w ai ver s ofi m m uni t y. To t he t hat ext ent Pet er s’ s pet i t i ons ca n be con st r ued t o a l l egevi ol at i ons of42 U. S. C. § 19 83 a g a in s ta n yo ft h ed e f e n d a n t s , q u a lif ie d im m u n it yis 5 i m m uni t y fr om sui tavai l abl e t o gov er nm entof f i ci al s sued i n t hei ri ndi vi dual c a p a c i ti e s u n d e r § 1 9 8 3 . Ha r lo wv. F itzg era ld, 4 5 7 U .S . 8 0 0 , 8 1 8 , 1 0 2 S . C t.6 ... Pet er s st at esr epe at edl y i n c or r es ponde ncet hathi s ca se i s abo ut

f r aud . 10 272 7, 2738 ( 198 2) . G ove r nm entof f i ci al s perf or m i ng di sc r et i ona ry f unc t i ons a r ep r o t e c t e d f r o m c iv il lia b ilit y u n d e r t h e d o c t r in e o f q u a lif ie d im m u n it y ift h e ir con duc tvi ol at esno c l ear l y e st abl i sh ed st at ut ory orco ns t i t ut i ona l r i ght s of w h i c h a re a s o n a b l ep e rs o n w o u l d h a v ek n o w n . Poteet v. Sul l ivan , 218 S. W . 3d 7 8 0 , 7 8 7 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 7 , p e t. d e n i e d ). A p p e l l e e s ’ a l l e g e d fa i l u re t o i nve st i gat e Pe t er s’ s com pl ai nt s r ega r di ng st ol en pr ope rt y orf i l e c har geson t hose com pl ai nt s di d not vi ol at e a cl ear l y est abl i shed st at ut or y orconst i t ut i onal l a w o r r i g h t. To t he ext entt hatPet er s’ s pet i t i onsca n beco ns t r ued t o m er el y a l l ege com m on l aw f r aud cl ai m s agai nstA ppel l ees, i n l i ght of t he ent i r e r ec or d, t he 6 t r i al courtcoul d have con cl uded t hathi s r eal i st i c chances oful t i m at e success o n tho se clai m s w e re s li g h t o r th a t t h eclai m s h a v en o arg u a b l eb a sis i n fac t. See T e x . C i v . P ra c . &R e m . C o d eA n n . § 1 4 .0 0 3 (b )(1 ), (2 ). W e hol d t hat t he t r i al cou rt di d not abu se i t s di sc r et i on bydi sm i ss i ng P e te rs ’sc l a i m sa g a i n s t A p p e l l e e s . Se e id. § 1 4 .0 0 3 (a )( 2 ). W eo v e r r u le Pet er s’ s i ssues and af f i r m t he t r i al court ’ s j udg m ent s. P E RCU R I AM PA N EL: M EI ER, J. ; CA YC E, C. J. ; an d DA U PH I N O T, J. DEL I VERE D: Aug us t28, 2009