In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-07-00127-CV
______________________________
JAMES EDWARD LEWIS AND
CRAIG COLIN AGNEW, Appellants
V.
NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN, ET AL., Appellees
On Appeal from the 202nd Judicial District Court
Bowie County, Texas
Trial Court No. 07C1271-202
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION
James Edward Lewis and Craig Colin Agnew jointly appeal from a judgment rendered
against them in their civil lawsuit against the Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
In their jointly-filed petition, they set out a variety of unrelated statements. They allege, in sequence,
INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL AND LIABILITY IN INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY, BREACH OF DUTIES, LEGAL MALPRACTICE, AND ACTING
UNDER THE COLOR OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS BY DELIBERATE
DISCRIMINATION OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW,
INTENTIONALLY AND KNOWINGLY, RACKETEERING INFLUENCED AND
CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS 18 U.S.C.A. 1962 PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES
AND 18 U.S.C.A. 1968 CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE DEMAND.
They go on, invoking the Texas Tort Claims Act, as follows:
(WHISTLEBLOWER INMATE) AND OFFICERS RETALIATION FOR PENDING
LEGAL LITIGATION AGAINST THE BARRY TELFORD UNIT (OWNERS),
(WARDENS), AND (KNOWN OR UNKNOWN AGENTS) OR (OFFICERS).
Appellants then continue with eleven unclear paragraphs. We surmise that they complain that the
appellees are violating their rights and imposing some type of restraints on them, ranging from
something having to do with their continued incarceration, their underlying convictions, the size of
their cells, and the methods used to calculate the time of their continued incarceration.
As examples, some of the allegations are quoted below:
1) DEFENDANTS ARE IN VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S PROBATION
ELIGIBILITY, SHOCK PROBATION, PAROLE AND MANDATORY
SUPERVISION RELEASE AND APPEAL BOND DUE PROCESS.
. . . .
3) DEFENDANTS ARE IN VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S
CONSTITUTIONAL CLASSIFICATION PROCESSING PURSUANT TO
THE RUIZ (VS) ESTELLE STIPULATIONS AND DECREE ON GOOD
TIME CREDITS.
. . . .
5) DEFENDANTS ARE IN VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S TEXAS CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ARTICLE 12.01 STATUE [sic] OF
LIMITATIONS, AND INVALID OR DEFECTIVE INDICTMENTS
PRESENTED AT TRIAL OR GUILTY PLEA.
. . . .
8) DEFENDANTS ARE IN VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S 50 SQUARE
FOOT CUBICLES WITH SINGLE BUNK AND 80 SQUARE FEET CELLS
9) DEFENDANTS ARE IN VIOLATION OF PLAINTIFF'S
Medical Liability
The petition continues with twelve pages of quotes taken from various prison policy directives and
rules of conduct. The petition concludes with this statement:
THESE RULES OF CODE AND CONDUCT IN THE ABOVE
MENTIONED DOCUMENTED VIOLATIONS ARE IN PURSUANT TO TEXAS
GOVERNMENT CODES, SECTION 497.007, 500.003, 556.004, 556.007,
614.0234, AND CHAPTERS 571 AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION
STANDARDS; 3-4010, 3-4061, ALSO PURSUANT TO P.D. 22 OF CODE AND
CONDUCT EMPLOYEES ARE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE AGENCY AND
ARE EXPECTED TO ADHERE TO THE HIGHEST STANDARD OF CONDUCT.
PRAYER
THE APPELLATE PRAYS CONSTITUTIONAL RELIEF WILL BE
GRANTED[.]
The trial court's response was to issue an order noting that Lewis and Agnew are inmates, that
only Lewis had signed the complaint, and attempting to find a cause of action in the morass. The