### NUM BER 13-06- 0047 2-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G

KIR K WA

YNE M CB RID E, SR ., A pp ellan t,
v. TE XA S D EPA RT M ENT OF C RIM INA L JU ST ICE - COR REC TION A L INST ITU TION S D IVISION, A pp ellees
.

On a p p ea l f ro m th e 34 3 D is tr ic t C o u rt rd 

### of B ee Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez Ap p e lla n t K irk W a yne McB rid e , S r. , a n in m a te pro ce e d in g pro se , f iled suit against the Tex as Dep ar

tment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce (“ the D epar tment” ) becau se it al leg edl y v iol ated his co nst it uti onal r ig hts by not pr ov idi ng hi m noti ce of a g ri ev ance pr oceed ing dec is ion

. T he trial cou rt dismissed McBride’s claims w ith prejud ice f or la ck o f ju risdiction. By

a single2

is sue, M cBr ide co ntends the tr ial co urt er re d i n di smi ss ing hi s c lai ms. W e reve rs e and
re mand. I. B A CKGRO UND W hil e an inmat e at a D epar tment facil it y , Mc Br ide w as char g ed w it h pos ses si on of
an a lcoho lic bev erage, a f acility inf ract io n , a n d t he Dep artm ent ente red f indings against him in a di sc ipl ina ry

hear ing

. On September 14, 2004, Mc Br ide filed a “S tep 1 Gr iev ance” of the dis ci pli nar

y hear ing

. The De par

tment deni ed M cBr ide ’s g ri ev ance on Sep tember 29. Mc Br ide a l l e g e d t h a t h e d i d n o t r e c e i v e n o t i c e o f t h e D e p a r t me n t ’ s d e c i s i o n o n h i s S tep 1 Grieva n ce u n til Oct ober 21, 2004. After

he r ecei v ed not ic e, M cBr ide fil ed a “S tep 2 Gr iev ance. ” In his Ste p 2 G ri ev ance, M cBr ide all eg ed that he di d not r ecei v e not ic e of the Depa rtme nt’s de cision in the Step 1 Griev ance procee ding. Th e Depa rtme nt sum ma rily deni ed M cBr ide ’s Ste p 2 G ri ev ance, and it noti fied M cBr ide that the file w as cl osed. On Janua ry 10, 2005, Mc Br ide filed sui t ag ain st the D epar tment. M cBr ide cl aimed that the D epar

tment’ s d eni al of hi s Step 2 Gr iev ance w it hout adeq uate noti ce w as a deni al of admi n i s t r a t i v e a n d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s
. H e s o u g h t a j u d g me n t d e c l a r i n g t h a t t he Dep ar tment had vio lat ed hi s c onst it uti onal r ig hts by not pr ov idi ng hi m w it h not ic e of the deci si on i n the Ste p 1 G ri ev ance pr oceed ing . Mc Br ide al so soug ht an i nju nct ion to or der the Departm ent t o provide h im not ice of t he Ste p 1 Griev ance p rocee ding so t hat he cou ld pr oceed w it h hi s a dmini str ati v e r emedie s. T he Dep artm e n t f iled an answer generally den y ing M cBride’s allegation s. Add itiona lly , the Departm ent asserted t hat : (1) th e McBride’s claims w ere f riv olou s; (2) it enj oy e d s o v e r e i g n i mm u n i t y fr o m t h e s u i t ; a n d ( 3 ) i t w a s e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y ’ s fees. On Feb r u a r y 1 5 , 2 0 0 6 , t h e D e p a r t me n t fi l e d a p l e a t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n
. I n i t s ple a, t he3

Depa rtme nt argued that the trial co urt lacked jurisdiction be cause McBride’s claims w ere bar re d by

so v er eig n immuni ty

. The Dep artment further ar g ued that the cl aims shoul d be
cons tr ued as a c hal len g e to a di sc ipl ina ry ac ti on, w hich c a n o n ly be r ais ed th ro ug h a habeas co rp us pr oceed ing

. Mc Br ide re spond ed to the Dep artment’ s p lea by ar g uin g that it had w aiv ed immuni ty from sui t by re q uest ing attor ney ’s fees. A tel ephoni c hear ing w as hel d on Febr uar

y 15, 2006. On Jul y

28, 2006, the tr ial co urt g ra nted the D epar tment’ s p lea to t h e j u ri s d ic tion a nd signed an orde r dismissing M cBride’s claims wi th preju dice. T his int er loc utor

y appeal ens ued. See T EX
. C IV
. P R AC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 51.0 14( a) (2 ) (Verno n Sup p. 20 07). II. D I S CUS S I ON A pl ea to the jur is dic ti on s eeks di smi ss al becau se the t ri al cour t l ack s s ubj ect -mat ter jur is dictio n t o consi der the caus e. Har

ri s C ounty v. Sy kes , 1 3 6 S

. W

. 3 d 6 3 5 , 6 3 8 (T e x. 2004)

. W hether

a t ri al cour

t has su bje ct- matter

j ur is dic ti on i s a q uest ion of law subjec t t o de nov o r ev iew

. Hof

f v . N ueces C ounty , 153 S.W .3d 4 5, 48 (Tex . 200 4) ; Tex . D ep't of Par ks & Wil dli fe v . M ir anda , 133 S.W .3 d 2 1 7 , 2 26 ( Tex . 200 4) ; Tex. Dep't of Fam ily & Pr otec ti ve Ser

vs . v . At wood , 176 S.W .3d 5 22, 5 2 7 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 4, pet. deni ed)

. Or din ar il y , i f sov er eig n i mmunity i s i mpli cat ed, a n i nmate may n o t bri ng
rev iew of his T DC J i n stitutio nal disciplina ry hea ring bef ore stat e district courts un less
sov er eig n i mmunity

i s w aiv ed. Stat e Dep ’

t of Cr im . J ust ic e v . M il ler , 51 S.W .3d 5 83, 5 87 (Tex . 200 1)

. On appe al, McBride argues tha t the trial court abuse d its discretion in dismissing his cl aims b e cause t he D epar tment w aiv ed s ov er eig n i mmunity by se eki ng aff ir mati v e r eli ef in the f orm o f

atto rney’s f ees. W e agree. In a sim ilar case, w e held tha t the Departm ent ’s4

cla im f o r at to rn e y’s f e e s is co n sid e re d a cl a im f o r af f irm a ti ve re lie f

th a t waive s so vere ign immuni ty

. Pow ell v. Tex. Dep’ t of Crim . Justice , 2 5 1 S

. W

. 3 d 7 8 3 , 7 9 0 -9 1 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2008, pet. fil ed)

. Unde r o ur hol din g i n Pow ell , t he D epar tment has
w aiv ed s ov er eig n i m m u n it y in thi s c ase by se eki ng aff ir mati v e r eli ef in t he form o f attor ney ’s fees. Id. M cBr ide ’s so le is sue is su sta ine d. III
. C ONCL US I ON The di smi ss al or der

of the d is tr ic t c our

t is RE VER SED and the c ase is R EM AN DE D for furt her

pr oceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion

.

_________

_________

______ RO GELI O VA LDE Z Chief Justice Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s t he 31s t day

of Jul y , 200 8.