NO. 07-06 -046 8-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B DE CE MB ER3, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ CEDRIC JONES, APPE LLA NT

v. TEXAS D EPAR TMEN T OF CR IM IN AL J US TICE, IN STITUTION AL D IVIS ION , ET A L., APPEL LEES

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 25 1 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; ST NO. 88, 649 -C; HON. PAT RICK A. PIRT LE, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Ap p e lla n t C e d r i cJ o n e s, a T e xas pri so n in m a te ap p e a rin g pro se , c hal len g es the dism issal of

his suit against Jam es Bea ch, an emp loyee of the u n itin w hich ap pellan t is incarcerat ed. W e w ill dism iss the ap pea l. As a general rule, o ur app ellate jurisdiction is limited to rev iew of f inal ju dgme nts. Lehm ann v

. Har -C on C or p., 39 S.W .3d 191 , 195 (Tex. 2001 ). In the ab sence of statu torySee Tex . C iv. Pr ac. & R em. C ode An n. § 13.001 (V er non 200 2) ( address ing 1 f riv olou s claims an d dism issals). 2 prov is ion for a ppeal of an i nter loc utor y order , a jud g ment mus t di spos e of al l is sues and par ti es in the cas e to be final and appeal abl e. Ne w Y o r k U n de r w r ite r s In s . C o . v

. S a n c h e z, 799 S.W .2d 677, 678-7 9 ( Tex . 199 0) ( per cu ri am), citi

ng Nor th East Independent

School Di st. v. Aldr

idg e, 400 S.W .2d 8 93, 8 95 ( Tex . 1966). Our ex er ci se of appel lat e j ur is dicti on ov er an i nter loc utor

y order in the absence of ex press statut or y authori z ati on is jur is dicti onal er ro r. New

York Underw

riters, 799 S.W .2d at 679. W e must , t herefore, cons ide r our jur is dic ti on sua sponte. Jone s began by suing Senior W arde n Josep h K. Pri ce, Lie ute nan t Jam es R. Bea ch and Proper

ty Officer Gar y Gi ff o rd , a sserti ng cl aims ar is ing from l oss of his personal proper ty and v iol ati ons of hi s cons ti tuti onal ri g hts

. The tr ial co urt s ig ned an order g ra nti ng a mo tion to dismiss the suit f il e d b y Price and Gif

ford, an d dism issing his claims against th em . W he n J on es a pp ea l ed t ha t orde r , w e di s mi s s ed t he a pp ea l b ecau s e hi s c l ai ms ag ain st Beac h had not b een adj udi cat ed. Jones v. Gi ffor d, N o . 0 7 - 0 1 - 0 5 0 7 - C V , 2 0 0 2 WL 342660 (Tex .App. –Amar il lo 2002, no pet .) ( me m . o p .) . Beach l ater fil ed an answ er

to Jone s’s suit, and a mo tion to dism iss the claims againsthim as f riv olou s. T he trial cou rt 1 ent ered an order grant ing “Defend ant Bea ch’s Motion to Dismiss,” and dism issing Jone s’s claims. It is f rom th is order thatJone s brings this ap pea l. In the meanti me, how ev er , Jones filed his si xth amended peti ti on, addi ng the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce–I nstit u ti o n al Di v is ion as a de fendant, an d as ser ti ng addi ti onal cl aims agai nst that agency . The re cord before us does not reflectthat the Tex asAn ot h e rwise i nter loc utor y order may be made final by

se v erance, di smi ss al, or 2 non- sui t of unresol v ed c lai ms. See, e.g., Par k P lac e Hosp. v. Es tate of M il o, 909 S.W .2d 508, 510 ( Tex . 199 5)

. 3 Dep a rt m e n t o f Cr imi nal Ju sti ce–I nst it uti onal D iv is ion has fil ed an answ er or any othe r ple adi ng respon si v e to Jones ’s peti ti on. To be final , a jud g ment rendered in a proceed ing othe r than a c onv enti onal tr ial on the m erits m ust actu ally d ispose o f

a ll claim s a nd partie s o r sta te clearlyand une quiv ocally that iti s a final j udg ment as to all cl aims and all par ti es. Lehm ann, 39 S .W .3d a t 205

. The order from w hic h thi s a ppeal i s b ro ug ht, ev en w hen co u p le d wit h the order ear li er appeal ed, d oes not d isp o se o f the c lai ms J ones has ass erted a g ain st the Tex as D e p a rt me n t o f C r i mi n a l J u s t i c e – I n s t i t u t i o n a l D i v i s i o n , n o r d o e s i t s t a t e c l e a r l y and une quiv ocally tha t it is a f inal judgme nt as to all claims and all parties. Nor does th e record re flect that Jones ’s cl aims ag ain st the Tex as Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce–I nst it uti onal Di v is ion hav e been sev er ed, d is mis sed, or othe rw is e resol v ed. Unde r the record be fore 2 us, they remain pendi ng and unadj udi cat ed. Beca use Jones ag ain att empts to ap peal an o rd er thati s n ot fina l and app eal abl e, w e mustf ind w e hav e no jur is dicti on ov er the attempt ed appe al. I t i s t herefore di smi ss ed.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice