### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00 740 -CV

Ro que Te r c e r o- Ar anda , A ppe lla nt

v. G r e g A bbot t, At to r ne y G e ne r al o f Te xa s; De nise A. Vi lla r r e al, As sis ta ntAt to r ne y G e ne r al; P atric ia K. Dye r, Assistant Att orney G eneral; Cart er T. Schildk necht, Distr ict Judge; Virginia Stew art, D istrictClerk of Gaines County; Ricky B. Smit h, District A ttor ney; and T roy Bennett, C lerk , Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-04- 0035 55 , HO NORAB LE GISELA D. TRIANA-DO Y AL , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Roque Terc ero- Ara

nda, appea

ring pro se, challeng es the district c ourt ’s o rd er dismiss ing his c ivil rights claims ag ainst sever al state a nd co u n t y defe ndants, including the attorney g ener al, two assistant attorney s g ener al, a Ga ines co unty district judge and cle rk, a district attorney , and the cler k of the court of criminal appea ls. We a ffirm the district court’s jud g me nt. Ara

nda filed this civil r ights lawsuit in T ravis County district court on Oc tober 25, 2004. See42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985(3) (West 2003). At t he ti me Aranda filed this sui t, he was incar cer ated in the McConnell Unit in Be eville, Tex as. In April 2007, afte r he had bee n rele ased on parole , Ara

nda wa s deported to Me x ico.2 T h e ev en t s giving r ise to Aranda ’s claims in this lawsuit beg an in 1997. On October 7, 1997, a jury

in Gaines County , Texas, found Ara nda guilty of burg lary

of a ha bitation. Ara nda’s c onviction was af

firmed by the Eig hth Court of Appea ls of Texas on Dece mber 3, 1998,
and Ar and a did no t se e k r e vie w b y

the Te xas C ourt

of Cr imi na l App e a ls. Hi s c onvic tio n b e c ame final on January

2, 1999. Ara nda filed a

petition for writ of ha

beas c orpus in fede ral dist rict court on October 2, 2000, and cla imed that he had also filed a state habeas application in state court on October 5, 1999. In response to Aranda ’s fe d er al habe as petition, responde nt, Direc tor of the Te x as De partment of Criminal J ustice Institut ional Division (TDCJ Direc tor), f iled a motion to dism iss, arguing that Ara nda had failed to exhaust state admini strative remedies. Although Aranda claimed that he had filed his state ha

beas a pplication on Octo b er 5, 1999, the TDCJ Direc tor contende d that no such application had been f iled. The fe dera l district judge or d ere d the TDCJ Direc tor to produce
ou tg oin g m a i l l o g s f

r o mth e p r i s o nun i tw h e r e A r an d a w a s i n c ar c e r a t e d

a s w e l l a s ana f

f i d av it from t h e Ga ines County district clerk’ s office , showing that no state habe as application had be e n ma ile d o r r e c e ive d. Th e TD CJ Dir e c tor pr od uc e d th e log s a s o rd e re d, and ba se d o n th os e log s, the fe dera l district court dismissed Aranda ’s suit for fa ilure to exhaust state remedi es o n J u n e 12, 2001. See Colem an v. Thompson , 5 01 U. S. 7 22 , 7 31 (1 99 1) ; Brewer v. J ohnson , 139 F.3d 491, 493 (5th Cir. 1998).

On J uly 23, 2001, Ara

nd a fi l ed a st ate ha

beas a pplication. The c ourt of cr iminal appea ls denied the a

pplication on Dec ember 12, 2001, without wr itten order. O n Marc h 26, 2002, Ara nda filed a

second appli cation for

writ of habe as cor

pus in feder al cour

t. Then, on Mar ch 7,3

20 03 , th e fe de ra l di str ic t c ourt dis mis se d th is a

pp lic a tio n a s ti me -b arr ed un der the Antit e rr or ism and Eff ective D eath Pena lty

Act of 1996, f

inding that Ar anda’ s fede ral ha beas pe tit ion was due J anuar y 2, 2000, but not filed until March 26, 2002. See28 U.S.C. § 2244 (West 2006). On Octobe r 25, 2004, Ara nda filed his orig inal petition in thi s case for violat i ons of his fede ral civil rig hts pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985(3), cla iming that appe llees de pr ived hi m of his ri g ht t o r e lie f u nd e r a “ pr op e rl y

fi le d” wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s. Ac c or din g to Ara nda, al t h o u gh h e “properly filed” his wr it of habea s corpus on Oc tober 5, 1999, a ppellees preve nted it from being filed. Ara nda contends that either the attorney g ener al appe llees pre vented his ha be a s c or pu s p e tit ion

fr om b e ingfi le d, or

the c ourt a pp e lle e s “del iber a te ly

re fu se d” to f

ile it. Ara nda asked the di strict court for compensatory

and punitive damag es, injunctive and de clar atory relief , and equitable relief

. The state a

ppellees f iled their motion to dism iss on November 4, 2 0 0 5, arguing th at Ar an d a’ s claim was f rivolous or malicious under se ction 14.003(a) (2) of the civil prac tice and re medies code
. SeeTex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003(a )(2) (West 2002). Acc ording to t h e s t a t e a p p e l l e e s , A r an d a ’ s c l a i mw a s f r i v o l o u s o r

m a l i c i o u s b e c a

u s e , am o n g o th e r

r e a s o n s, “Ar anda ha s filed the same claims in thr ee other courts” and “Ar anda is estopped from r e-litig ating the ce ntral issue of whe ther he filed a pe tition for writ of habe as cor pus in state court.” On J une 12, 2005, the c ounty appellee s filed a “Notice That Plaintiff Roque Ter cer o Ara nda I s a Vex atious L itigant and Requirement That His L awsuit Be Dismissed Unless He Obta ins An Orde r F rom the L ocal Administrative Judge ,” re questing that, pursuant to sec tion 11.103(b) of the c ivi l pr a c tic e and

re me die s c od e , th e dis tr ic t c ourt :4

immediately

stay the litigation and that it be dismiss ed no later than the 10th day

afte r this noti ce ha s been f

iled in the event that the Plaintiff does not obtain an orde r fr om the local a dminist rative judg e to per mit thi s liti g ation to go f

orwa rd.
See id. § 11.103(b) ( West 2002).

Followinga telephonic hear ing w ith all parties, the district court ente red its orde r of dis mis sa l a s to the state a

pp e lle e s on Oc tob e r 26, 20 06 . The c ourt ’s or de r c on c lud e d th a t a pp e lle e s’ “mot i o n t o d ismiss should be GRANTED in a ccor dance with Tex. C iv. Prac. & Rem. Code § 14.003(a) (2) a s frivolous or malicious .” The district court dismissed Aranda ’s claims as to the county appellee s on November

13, 2006, finding that “the Plaintiff ha s not obtained an orde r fr om the local a dminist rative judg e allowingthe litigation to proc eed w ithin the tim e per iod require d.”

We review a dismiss al pursuant to c hapter 14 under a

n abuse- of-discr etion standard. Pr esia do v . S

he ffi e ld , 230 S.W .3d 272, 274 (Tex. A pp.—Be aumont 2007, no pet.). A tria l court has broad discr etion to dismi ss an i n m at e’ s s u i t as frivolous “be cause : (1) prisoner s have a strong incentive to litigate; (2) t he gover nment bear s the cost of an in forma pa uperis suit; (3) sanc tions are
no t e ff e c tiv e ; and

(4 ) t he dis mis sa l of

unme ri tor iou s c la ims a c c ru e s to the be ne fi t of state of fi c ia ls, courts, and me rit o ri o u s cl ai mants.” Retzlaff v. Texas De p’t of Crim. Justice , 94 S.W .3d 650, 654 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th D ist .] 20 02 , p e t. d e nie d) . A t ri a l c ourt a bu se s it s d isc re tio n if

it a c ts in an ar bitrary or unre asonable manner

without refe renc e to gu i d i n g ru l es or pr inciples. Downer

v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc. , 701 S.W .2d 238, 241-42 (Te x . 1985). B e c a us e the dis tr ic t c ourt

did not state the basis on which it f ound Ara nda’s suit frivolous, we will affir m on any basis supported by the re cord. See Se llers v. Foster , 199 S.W .3d 385, 390 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 2006, no pet.).5 Ara nda ar g ues that his claims wer e not fr i v o l o us or malicious under
se c tio n 1 4. 00 3( a )( 2) be c a us e his c la ims we re no t, as a pp e lle e s c on te nd , s ub sta

nti a lly sim ila r t o previous cla ims he had filed. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003(b ) ( W es t 2 002). Under section 14.003(b) , in determiningwh et h er a claim is frivolous or malicious, the c ourt may
c on sid e r whe the r “ the c la im is su bs tanti a lly

sim ila r t o a pr e vio us c la im f

ile d b y the inm a te be c a

us e the claim ar ises from the same oper ative fa cts.” Id. Ara nda arg ues t hat hi s claims wer e not frivolous or malicious under

section 14.003(a )(2) beca use his claims wer e not, as ap p el lees c ontend, substantially

simil ar to pre vious claims he had f iled. The pre sent suit turns on whether, a s Aranda contends, he “prope rly

filed” a petition for ha beas c orpus in state cour t on October

5, 1999. Acc ordingto Aranda , appellee s preve nted his “proper ly

filed” petition from actually being filed. In an order dated J une 12, 2001, the f eder al district court dete rmined that Ara nda “ha [d] not exhausted any of his claims in the State court” and,
acc ording ly , g rante d Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Fa ilure to Exhaust. I n its order, the f eder al dis tr ic t c ourt

c ite d to sw or

n a ff ida vit s o f t he TD CJ dir e c tor

ind ic a tin g tha

t: (1) Petitioner did not file a petition for discretionar y revie w with the Texas Court of Cr imi na l App e a ls; (2) no application for

writ of habe as cor

pus in the name of Roque R. Aranda has be e n f ile d w iththe Te xas C ourt of Cr imi na l App e a ls; (3) acc ordingto the officia l docket she et maintained by the District Court of Gaines County , Texas, the Clerk’s offi ce r ece ived two documents fr om P et i t i o n er d uri n g th e p er i o d

o f t i m e f

ro mS ep t em b er

1 5 , 1 9 9 9 , t h ro u gh November

15, 1999—(a) a “Supple m en t al Report in Support of Writ” on November

8, 1999, and (b) another “Supplemental Repo rt i n Support of Application” on Nove mber 10, 1999;6

(4) the Gaines County District Clerk’s Of fice also rec eived a

document on May 19, 1999, entitled “Application for Writ of Hab eas Corpus;” however , “the document filed by

petitioner wa s only a letter and wa s not an application for Writ of Habea s Corpus.”
Ara nda’s c laims arise fr om the same ope rative f acts a s those at issue in the fe dera l lawsuit and, i n fa ct , s ee k a dete rmination of exactly the same que stion already answe red by

the fede ral c ourt—whethe r the state c ourt habe as cor pus petition wa s “prope rly filed.” N othing in the
rec ord sup p o rt s Aranda ’s contention that appe llees conspire d to preve nt his “proper ly filed”
a pp lic a tio n f

ro m be ingfiled
. W e con c lud e that A ra nd a ’s c la ims are su

bs tanti a lly

sim ila r t o h is pr e vio us ly

de te rm ine d f

e de ra l c la im, and

that th e tr ia l c ourt

did no t a bu se its di sc re tio n in char acte rizing the pe tition as frivolous or malicious under sec tion 14.003(b). See id.

Ara nda also a

rgues that he w as de n i ed a fu l l and fa ir hea ringof his case and th a t , d e s p i t e h i s r e qu e s t , h e w a s d e n i e d a j u ry tr i a l
. U n d e r

s e c t i o n1 4
. 0 0 3 ( c ) , a

tr i a l c o urt“ m ay” hold a hea

ringbefore d i s m i s s i n g a suit under se ction 14.003(a) , but is not required to do so. Id. § 1 4. 00 3( c ); Presiado , 2 30 S.W. 3d a t 27 4; Thoma s v. Bilby , 40 S.W .3d 166, 168 (T e x. Ap p. —T e xar

ka na 20 01 , n o p e t.) . Atr ia l c ourt ’s deci si on on wh e the r t o h old

a he ari ngis discretionar

y . Se e W ill iam s v . B ro wn , 33 S.W .3d 410, 411 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2000, no pet.). Acc ordingto the rec ord, the district cour t did, in fact, hold a tele phonic hea ring wi thal l p art i es o nOc t o b er 2 6 , 2 0 0 6 , atwh i ch Ar an d a w as ab l e t o p re s en th i s ar gu m en t s . Al th o u gh Ar an d a c o n t e n d s t h a t h e w a s d en i eda j ury tri al , a c h ap t er

1 4 d i s m i s s al i s b as edo nth e p l ea d i n gs and does not c ontempl at e t h e p re s entation of evidence befor e judg e or jury
. See Tex. Ci v. Prac.7

& Re m. C od e Ann. § 1 4. 00 3. In a dd iti on , to the e x ten t th at Aranda c omp la ins of

the mann e r i n which the he aringwas he ld, telephonic hea ring s ar e ex p ressly

permitted by

the rules of

judicial administration. See Te x. R. J ud . Adm in. § 7(a )( 6) (b ). We co nc lud e that A ra nd a wa s a ff or de d a fu ll
and fa ir he ari nga s c on te mpl a te d und e r t he a pp lic a ble statut e s. As to the county appellee s, Ara nda challeng es the district c ourt’s o rd erd ismiss ing his claims for fa ilure to obta in a n order from the local administrative judge allowing the litigation to p ro c e e d. Ar and a

argue s th a t th e re is n o e vid e nc e that he is a ve xati ou s li tig ant. The district cour

t’s prior dete rmination as to whether Ara nda is a ve x atious liti g ant is not at issue in thi s liti g ation. Se e Aran da v . S tate , N o . 1 1
- 0 5
- 0 0 2 4 6
- C V , 2 0 0 6 T e x . Ap p . LE X IS 898 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2006, pet. de nied) (me m. op.) (p ercuriam) (af firming the trial cour

t’s order ad j u d i catingAra

nda a ve x atious liti g ant pursuant to sec tion 11.101 of the civil prac tice
and re me die s c od e ). Th e on ly iss ue be fo re us is whe the r— g ive n th e e xistin g or de r t hat A ra nd a is
a ve xati ou s li tig ant—h e com plie d w itha pp lic a ble pr e re qu isi te s to fi lin g a dd iti on a l st a te laws uit s. Ar and a make s n o c on te nti on

that he c omp lie d w ith

the a pp lic a ble re qu ir e me nts , a

nd the re is no evidenc e in the re cord that Aranda obtained t h e o rd er re q uired for the lawsuit to proce ed. See Tex. Ci v. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 11.101 (West 2002). We conc lude that t h e d i s t rict cour t proper ly dismiss ed Ar anda’ s lawsuit pur suant to se ction 11.101 of the c ivil practice and re medies code. See id. Ha

vin g de te rm ine d th a t A ra nd a ’s c laim s are su

bs tanti a lly

sim ila r t o h is p re vio us ly deter mined fede ral c laim, that the hearing on Ara nda’s c laim conforme d to applicable pr ocedur al8

rules, and that Aranda

failed to c omply

with proce dural re quiremen t s applicable to vexatious litigants, we overr

ule Ara nda’s issues. The judgme nt of conviction is aff irmed.

__________________________________________ G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: F ebrua

ry 27, 2009