NO. 07-07 -033 1-CV IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A SEPTEM BER30, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ MICHAEL SCOT T , TDCJ NO. 683 064 , APPE LLA NT v. RI CH AR D PH ILLIP S, E T AL., APPEL LEES

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 25 1 DIS T RI CTCOU RTOF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; st NO. 93, 764 -C; HON. ANA EST EVE Z, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON App ellant , Michael Scot t, ap pea ls from an orde r dismissing his p rose , in f o rma pauperis s u i tu n d e r

C h a p t e r

1 4 o f t h e T e x a s C i v i l P ra ct i c e a n d R e m e d i e s C o d e . W e affi r m. Scott i s a n i nmate atthe Te n n e ss e e C olo ny U nitof the Texas Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce, Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion ( herein after, “ TDC J- ID ”). On J uly 18, 2004, Scott f il e d a c ivi l s u iti n W ic h it a C o u n ty, T e xa s , a ga in s tCa p t a in Ri c h a rd P h il li p s , A p ri l V a s qu e z,All referen ces to “Chap ter 14” w ill refer to Chap ter 14 o f the T exas Ci v il Practice 1 and R emedie s C ode. Spec ificse cti ons of Chapt er 14 w il l be referenc ed by “ § ___. ” The appel lee s als o filed a mot ion to decl are Sc ott a v exati ous li ti g ant, w hic h the 2 tr ia l co u rtal so gran te d . Ho wever, Sc o ttha s n o t a p p e a le d th is f in d in g. 2 and Law re nce Patt is on al leg ing thatthey had ordered an unnamed cor re cti onal off ic er to use a chemic al ag ent ag ain st anothe r in mate in an adj oin ing ce ll for t he pur pose of caus ing i nj u r y t o S c o tt. Ap p e l l e e s a n s w e re d t h e p e t i t i o n c l a i mi n g t h e a ffi r ma t i v e d e fe n s e o f a cor re cti onal off ic er ’spr ivile ge to us e forc e under se cti on 9. 53 of the Tex as Penal C ode. See T EX . P EN AL C OD E A NN . § 9.5 3 ( Ver non 200 5)

. On J anuar y 7, 2005, Scott fil ed an amended pe ti ti on addi ng W a rd e n W ill iam W alk er and Ass is tant W arden J oe N unn as d e fe n dantsand addi ng an a ll eg ati on th at t he acti ons of appell ees in order ing the cor re cti onal off ic er

to use a c hem ica l a gen t ag ain st the a djo ini ng i nmate was done w it h ma lice tow ard Sco tt. Beca use th e events giv ing r ise t o t h e lawsuit occu rred at the Bill Cl ements U nitof the TD CJ -I D loc ated in Pott er County , Texa s, the c ase was transfer re d to P otter C ounty on S eptember

20, 2005. Appel lee s fil ed a moti on to di smi ss the sui t as frivolo us on Apr il 12, 2007. See T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 14.003( a) (2 ) (V er non 2002)

. Scottdid not f il e any respon si v e pl eadi ng s t o the moti on to di smi ss and, on M ay 1 1, 20 07, t he tr ial co urt g ra nted the mot ion w it hout co n d u cting any hear ing

. Sc ott

2 subs eq uentl y

fil ed a moti on for new

tr ial thatwas ov er ru led by operati on of l aw . See T EX . R. C IV . P. 3 29b( e)

. This appeal foll owed. Scot t app eals, b y

one issue, con ten ding tha t the trial court abu sed its discretio n in fi nd i ng S c ott’ s p et i ti on wasfr i v ol ou s . W e affi r m.3 Standa rd of Rev iew Inmate li ti g ati on, e x ceptfor s uits b ro ug ht un der the Fami ly C ode, in w hic h the in m a te fil es an affidav itor uns wor n dec larati on of i nabi li ty to pay co stsi s g ov er ned by spec ial procedu ra l ru lesse t forth i n C hapter 14. The tr ial co urt hasbroad di sc re ti on to dism iss a lawsuit brou ght und er Ch a p t e r 1 4 as f rivolou s or malicious. § 14.0 03(a )(2). W hen det er mini ng w hether a c lai m isf rivo lous or

mal ic iou s, the c our

t may co nsi der

that th e cla im ha s n o argu a b le ba sis in la w o r in fa ct . S e e § 1 4 .0 0 3 (b )(2 ). W h e n re viewin g a tr ial co urt’ s d is mis sal of an inmat e’s cl aim w e appl y the abuse of di sc re ti on sta ndard. See Bohannan v . Tex . Bd . of C ri minal Ju sti ce, 942 S.W .2d 113, 115 ( Tex .App. –Aus ti n 1997, w ri t den ied ). A tr ial co urt abu ses it s dis creti on w hen it act s w it hout re ferenc e to any g uid ing rules and principles or w hen t h e a c ti s arbitrary and unrea sona ble. Id. If th e trial court dis mis sesa c lai m w it hout a hear ing , as in the s it uati on before us , t he q uest ion bec omes w hether the cl aim has no arg uabl e bas isi n the law

. See M orela nd v . J ohnso n, 95 S.W .3d 3 9 2 , 3 9 4 (T e x. A p p . – Ho u s t o n [ 1 Di s t

. ] 2 0 0 2 , n o p e t

. ). T h u s , we re vie w de n ovothe st question of

w het her the t rial cou rt p rope rly co nclud ed tha t Scot t had no arguab le basis in law for mai ntai nin g hi s s uit

. Id. Di sc uss ion Scott’ s l awsui t al leg es that the a ppel lee s o rd e r i n g o f a n u n n a me d c or re cti onal off ic er to use a chem ical agent on an adjoinin g inm ate was do ne wi th a m alicious inte nt to harm Scot t. As such, Sco tt is attem pting to allege the co mm on law cause of action for assau lt and batt ery . See Birdo v . Debo se, 81 9 S.W .2d 212 (Tex.App .–W aco 1 991 , no wr it).4

Addi ti onal ly , a cl ose r e a d in g o f Sc ott’ s p eti ti on appe ars t o al leg e tha t t he acti ons of the cor re cti onal off ic ial s a mounted to a v iol ati on of hi s ci v il rig hts under t he Texas Con sti tuti on. The fi rsti n qui ry

we w il l make i s w hether there i s a ny

co g niz abl e c ause of acti on under the Tex as Con sti tuti on for a v iol ati on of Sc ott’ s c iv il r ig hts

. Scott hasnot prov ide d this Court w ith an y

auth ority nor any argume nt suppo rting his claim fo r relief . Appe llees, howev er, have correctlypoint ed o ut th at th ere is no recognized claim for v iolation of civ il ri g hts under the Texas Con sti tuti on. See C ity of Beaumont v . Bo uil li on, 8 96 S. W .2d 1 43, 150 (Tex. 1996 ). T here fore, to the e xten t tha t Scot t is attem pting to allege a priv ate cause of action for v iolation of

his ri ghts und er the Texas Constitu tion, w e af f irm the trial court’s deter minat ion thatthe cl aim has no arg uabl e bas isi n the l aw . Our next i nq uir

y i s d irect ed to Sc ott’ s a ll eg ati ons, co ntai ned i n hi s a mended pet it ion , that an unna med off ic er was ordered to us e a chemi cal spray ag ain st another i nmate w it h a mal ic iou s i ntentto har m Sco tt. To det er mine w hether a t ri al cour

t hasproper ly

dec ide d that t h e re wa s n o a rg u a b l e b a s i s i n l a w fo r a n i n ma t e ’ s c l a i ms , w e e x a mi n e t he ty pes of relief and cause s of

action plead ed in th e inm a te’s pe tition to dete rmine w het her, as a matter of law , t he pet it ion st ates a c ause of acti on th at woul d aut hor iz e rel ief. See Sp ur l oc kv . Sc hroe dt er , 88 S .W .3 d 73 3, 73 6 (Tex .A pp .–Texar k an a 20 02 , no p et .)

. To hav e no arg uabl e basi s i n l aw , a cl aim must be bas ed on an i ndi sput abl y mer it les s l eg al t h e o ry o r t h e fa ct s a ll e ge d m u s tri s e t o t h e le ve l o f ir ra t i o n a l o r

wh o ll y in c re d ib le

. Gi ll v. Boyd D is tr ib. Ct r. , 64 S.W .3d 601, 603 ( Tex .App. –Tex ar kana 2001, pet. deni ed.)

. Stat ed another way , t he pl eaded fact s mus t notco mpri se a c ause of acti on. Id. at 60 4. In t he prese nt case , Scot t did no t plea d an y facts to supp ort his alleged cau se of action . Scott’s5

ba re al l eg at i on t ha t th e ap pe l l ee s ma l i c i ou s l y orde red a cor recti on al offic er t o as s au l t hi m, w it hout any

al leg ati on of factsthatwoul d al low the tr ial co urt t o a sc e rt ain the basi s for S c o tt ’ s c a u s e o f a ct i o n , i s i n s u ffi c i e n tt o s t a t e a c a u s e of a ct i o n th a tw o u l d a u t h o r i z e re l i e f. Acc ordin g ly , we c annot sayt h a t th e tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on to di smi ss Sc ott’ s p eti ti on as frivolo us was an abus e of di sc re ti on, t herefore, we ov er ru le Scott’ s i ss ue. Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led Sc ott’ s c ontent ion s, the j udg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice