IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-19-00077-CV

MICHAEL DEAN PERRY,

Appellant

v.

WARDEN ROBERT STEVENS,

Appellee

From the 440th District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18-47569

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 27, 2019, a document entitled “Motion for Suspension of the Rules” was 

received from Perry and filed. As part of the document Perry included an “Unsworn 

Declaration” declaring “under penalty of perjury that the above and foregoing is true and 

correct.” Based upon the sworn content in this document, we will dismiss this appeal 

because we have no jurisdiction of it.

In relevant part, the document was responding to a demand for a filing fee or that 
Perry v. Stevens Page 2

Perry establish his right to proceed without the payment of court cost, including the 

appellate court filing fee. In explaining why he believed he should not be required to pay 

the appellate court cost, Perry made the following statement: “...the amount of property 

in contest is at or about $95.00 plus costs of litigation. Therefore, it would be an absurd 

result to pay a filing fee that far exceeds the amount of recoverable property, two fold!” 

This Court’s jurisdiction is limited to appeals in which the amount in controversy exceeds 

$250. This amount excludes interest and court cost. Specifically, section 22.220 of the 

Government Code provides:

Each court of appeals has appellate jurisdiction of all civil cases within its 

district of which the district courts or county courts have jurisdiction when 

the amount in controversy or the judgment rendered exceeds $250, 

exclusive of interest and costs.

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.220(a).

We do not reach the many other procedural issues that are presented in this 

appeal, including the fact that it started out in a municipal court, or the numerous rules 

that we have noted with which Perry has failed to comply. In a letter dated May 7, 2019, 

we specifically noted, “There are a number of pending issues in this proceeding. For the 

moment, the Court addresses only the Court’s jurisdiction.” The letter went on to explain 

that the Court would dismiss the appeal unless “appellant or any party files a response 

that explains how this Court has jurisdiction of this appeal, specifically how the amount 

in controversy is within the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court.”

On May 20, 2019, the Court received and filed a document entitled “Objection to 
Perry v. Stevens Page 3

the Court’s Per Curiam Order.” Although appellant, Perry, titled the document as if 

responding only to an order, he notes in this response that the “gravamen of this writ 

concerns Perry’s objection to this court’s order and the most recent letter from the court’s 

clerk. And as a matter of judicial economy, Perry combines these two issues in this 

objection because they involve the same grounds, the erroneous denial of his 

property/tort claim and violations of his substantial due process rights!” Perry proceeds 

to take issue with the form and content of the letter. As part of the argument in support 

of this Court having jurisdiction, he references his expenditure of resources in filing 

numerous pleadings and discusses some of those filings and other proceedings. Perry 

ultimately relies on his notice of appeal from the district court’s order dismissing his case 

as invoking this Court’s jurisdiction.

But nowhere in the response does Perry address how the minimum jurisdictional 

limits of this Court are met. In other words, there is simply nothing in the response which

supports a conclusion that, if Perry obtained a full recovery for everything he requested,

his damage award would exceed $250, exclusive of interest and cost. 

Perry’s prayer at the end of his response includes the request that this “appellate 

court review and/or adjudicate his tort claim on the merits and issue an order compelling 

TDCJ to replace his property ‘sua sponte,’ and court costs and costs of litigation, and such 

other, and further relief to which he may be justly entitled, at law and in equity, or just 

cause be shown.” Fundamentally, Perry’s claim, as he has sworn to under the penalty of 
Perry v. Stevens Page 4

perjury, is for property valued “at or about $95.00.” This amount does not meet the 

Legislature’s minimum limit of $250.00 for this Court to have jurisdiction of this appeal. 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Appeal dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed June 5, 2019

[CV06]