### NUM BER 13-07- 0069 4-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
RIC HA RD EU GEN E SIMM ONS , A pp ellan t,
v. TE XA S D EPA RT M ENT OF C RIM INA L JU ST ICE - INSTI TUTIONA L DIVI SI ON A ND CORRECTIONS COR PORA

TION OF A M ERIC A , A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 19 7t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of W illacy C ou nt y , 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 Ri char d Eug ene Si mmons, an i nmate ap pear ing pr o s e, ap peal s t he tr ial court’s orde r dismissing his persona l i n ju ry suit for w ant of

prosecu tion. In three issue s, Si mmons c la ims thatthe tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is cr eti on by ( 1) di smi ss ing hi s c ase forSi m m ons f i l ed su i t wi t hout com pl et i ng T D C J’ s gr i ev ance sy st em pr ocedur e. T her ef or e, t he t r i al 1 c o u rt s ta y e d a n y a c ti o n o n th e s u i t u n ti l c o m p l e ti o n o f th e g rie v a n c e s y s te m p ro c e d u re
. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 14

. 00 5( c) ( Ver no n 20 02 )

. O n Ja nu ar y 4 , 2 00 6, Si m m ons fi l ed a c om pl et e st ep - t wo gr i ev ance f or m , whi ch st at ed t hat no f ur t her act i on was war r ant ed. 2 failu re to appear ; ( 2) di smi ss ing the cas e w it hout ru li ng on hi s mot ion for b ench w ar ra nt; and (3) not ruling on h is m otion t o v acat e the ju dgme nt and rein state t he ca se. W e reverse and r emand. I. B A CKGRO UND On Oc to b e r 31 , 2 0 0 5 , S im m o n s, pro ce e d in g pro se and in form a pa upe ris , s ued t he Tex a s D e p a rt me n to 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 ( “ TD C J ” ) a n d C o r r e c ti ons Corporat ion of

Ame rica fo r persona l injuries he allegedly susta ined w hen a guard accide ntly drop ped a “g as grenade ” in Simmo ns’s dorm itoryd uring a routin e pat rol. T CDJ 1
answ er ed Si mmons’ s p eti ti on on Apr il 4, 2 0 0 6

. Althoug h the r ecor d i ndi cat es that Cor re cti ons Cor por ati on w as ser v ed w it h c it ati on, i t doe s n ot c ontai n any pl eadi ng fil ed by Corrections Corporat ion. On Au gust 10, 20 06, Simm ons f iled a cha nge of add ress form ind ic ati ng thathe w as re lea sed on parole and noti fyi ng the cl er k o f his new addr ess
. On A ug ust1, 2007, the t ri al cour t is sued an or der set ti ng a he ar ing for d is mis sal for
w ant o f pros ecut ion

. The or der stated that the cas e w oul d be dis mis sed unl ess “ in open [c] our t g ood c a use be s how n for the c ase to be mai ntai ned on the d ock et.” Si mmons subs eq uentl y

fil ed th e followin g: (1 ) a n aff ida v itto show g ood c ause; ( 2) a c hang e of addr ess form; (3 ) a motion to i ss ue a bench w ar ra nt an d or der to appear ; ( 4) a mot ion for appoi ntment o f c o u n s e l ; a n d ( 5 ) a mo t i o n t o p r o v i d e a c o p y o f t h e r e c o r d

. A c c o r d i n g to Si mmons’ s a ff ida v it : he w as re -i ncar cer ated on a “t echni cal parol e v iol ati on” ; he los t al l of t h e p le a d in gs a n d p a p e rs re la t in g t o h is su it ; a n d T DC J d id n o tp e rm it h im t o co p y a manual on t he us e of force , w hic h w as neces sar y to fully i nv est ig ate t he c lai ms.3

The tr ial co urt di d not a ct on any of Si mmons’ s mot ion s. Ins tead, on S eptember 6, 2007 , t h e t r i a l c o u rt d i s mi s s e d S i mm o n s ’ s s u i t fo r w a n t o f p r o s e c u t i o n
. O n O c t o b e r 5, 2007, Si mmons fil ed a moti on to v acat e j udg ment and r ein sta te t he c ase. The r ecor d does not s how a n y ru lin g by the tr ial co urt on Si mmons’ s p ost -d is mis sal moti on. This appeal follo w ed. II. D I S CUS S I ON W e r ev iew

a di smi ss al for w ant o f pros ecut ion under an a buse of dis cr eti on sta ndar d. See WMC

Mor tgage Cor

p. v . St ar key , 200 S.W .3d 749, 75 2 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2006, pet. deni ed) ; F

r a n k l i n v . S h e r m a n I n d e p
. S c h. D is t. , 5 3 S

. W

. 3 d 3 9 8 , 4 0 1 (T e x. Ap p .– Da lla s 2 0 0 1 , p e t. de n ie d ) (p e r cu ria m ) (ci ti n g Sta te v. Rote llo , 671 S.W .2d 5 07, 5 09 (Tex . 198 4) ); see als o Vi ll ar re al v. San Antoni

o Tr uck & Equ ip. , 9 9 4 S

. W

. 2 d 6 2 8 , 6 3 0 (T e x. 1999) . The t ri al cour

t abu ses i ts dis cr eti on w hen i t ac ts w it hout re ferenc e to any g uid ing
ru les or pr inc ipl es. W

MC Mor tgage Cor

p. , 2 0 0 S. W .3 d at 75 2 (cit in g Jim ene z v. Tr answes ter

n Pr op. C o. , 999 S.W .2d 1 25, 1 29 ( Tex

. App.–H oust on [14th Di st. ] 199 9, no pet .)). A tr ial co urt may di smi ss a c ase for w ant o f p ro se cu ti on unde r ru le 165a for ( 1) failu re to appear or (2 ) failu re to compl y w it h the su pr eme co ur t t ime sta ndar ds. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 1 65a( 1) , ( 2)

. In ad dit ion , t he tr ial co ur t has i nher ent pow er to dis mis s a ca se for
w ant of pr osec uti on. See V il lar re al , 994 S.W .2d a t 630 ( “[ T]he c ommon l aw v est s t he tr ial
cour t w it h the i nher ent p ow er to dis m iss ind ependent ly of the r ule s o f proc edur e w hen a pla int iff f ail s t o pr osec ute h is or her ca se w it h due dil ig ence. ”) ; Franklin , 53 S.W .3d a t 401 ;
see als o T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 16 5a(4 ). Al thoug h an inmat e has a c onst it uti onal r ig ht to ac ces s t he c iv il tr ial co urts, thatr ig ht4

is not abs olu te or

w it hout li mits

. In re Z.L.T. , 124 S.W .3d 1 63, 1 65 ( Tex . 200 3) ; In re R.C.R. , 230 S.W .3d 4 23, 4 26 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 07, n o pet .)

. “[A]n inmat e does not have an ab solute rig ht to a p pea r in person in every court proce edin g.” In re Z.L.T. , 124 S.W .3d a t 165 ; see a ls o S w e e d v. City of El Paso , 139 S.W .3d 4 50, 4 52 ( Tex . Ap p.–El Paso 2004, no pet.) (c our t shoul d w eig h pr eser

v ati on of c or re cti onal sy stem ’s integr it y against inm ate ’s ri ght of access w ith goal o f

a chieving bala nce tha t is f und am ent ally f air). W hen t he tri al ju dg e det er mines an i nmate s houl d notbe a ll ow ed to appear personal ly , t he in m a t e sh o u ld b e a ll o we d t o p ro c e e d b y a f f id a vit , d e p o s it io n , t e le p h o n e , o r o t h e r e f f e c t ive
means. Boulden v

. Bo ulden , 133 S.W .3d 884 , 886 -87 ( T ex. App .–Dallas 2004 , no pe t.); see In re R.C.R. , 230 S.W .3d a t 426 ; Sweed , 139 S.W .3d a t 452 ; In re Mar ri age of Bus ter , 115 S.W .3d 141 , 145 (Tex. App. –T exarkana 20 03, no pe t.). The facts in thi s cas e are si mil ar to the fact s i n In re Ma rr iag e of Bolton , 256 S.W .3d 832 (Tex. App. –Dallas 20 08, no pe t.). In tha t case, a pro se inm ate co uld no t person ally appear at the d is mis sal hear ing for h is di v or ce act ion bec ause he w as inc ar cer ated and, beca use h e w as indigent , he could n ot retain t he serv ices of an att orne y

to app ear on his behal f. Id . at 83 4. Add itiona lly , the inma te ha d inf orme d the trial ju dge of these f acts in his moti ons a n d l e tters, and he mov ed for a benc h w ar ra nt or al ter nati v e means of appear ing

. Id . Th e trial court ignored th e inm ate ’s motio n s and dismissed the case becau se he fail ed to appear
. Id

. The cour t of appeal s h eld thatthe tr ial cour t abu sed it s dis cr eti on in dis mis si ng the cas e. Id

. The cour t’ s rat ion ale w as that by req uir ing the inmat e to ap pear

at a hear ing , w hil e notac ti ng on h is m oti on for a benc h w ar ra nt or to condu ct the hear in g by

tel ephone confer ence or othe r means, the tr ial co urt effecti v ely cl osed theW e n e e d n o t a d d r e s s S im m o n s ’s th ir d is s u e , a s it w o u l d n o t f u r th e r a f f e c t t h e o u tc o m e o fth is 2 a p p e a l

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 4 7 .1

. 5 cour thous e doors t o the i nmate. Id . (c it in g Boul den , 133 S.W .3d a t 886 ). This cas e i s n o di ff er ent t han Bolton . Th e record do es no t show that the trial court ruled on Si mmons’ s mot ion for a benc h w ar ra nt or thatthe tr ial co urt prov ide d Si mmons
w it h an oppor

tuni ty to be heard, s uch as by aff ida v it , dep o sition, tel ephone, or othe r eff ect iv e means
. See B oulden , 1 3 3 S

. W .3d at 886 -87. W e con clude that the trial court cl osed the c our

thous e doors in thi s c ase by not pr ov idi ng Si mmons w it h an oppor tuni ty to be heard at the d is mis sal hear ing and that suc h ac ti on w as an abus e of di sc re ti on. Id

. Si mmons’ s first and s econd i ss ues ar e s ust ain ed. 2 III
. C ONCL US I ON W e r ev er se the t ri al cour t' s o rd er di smi ss ing the cas e for w ant o f pros ecut ion and
re mand thi s c ase to t he tr ial co urt for further 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 30 day

of Oct ober , 200 8. th