Source: http://houston-opinions.com/files/14thCoA-2009-Richard-v-Dretke-by-Frost-inmate-prisoner-pro-se-suit-civil-frivolous-finding-dismissal.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 06:58:01+00:00

Document:
the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. We affirm.
compliance with sections 14.004 and 14.005 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
Remedies Code. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.002(a) (Vernon 2002); see Hickman v.
inmate’s suit if it finds that the claim asserted is frivolous or malicious. See Martinez v. Thaler, 931 S.
14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code?
under Section 13.001 or Section 14.003 or otherwise.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.004(a).
The record contains no affidavits or unsworn declarations in compliance with section 14.004.
t of Criminal Justice-Inst. Div., 962 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Tex. App.- Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet.
when an inmate fails to comply with the statutory requirements of section 14.004. See Gowan v. Tex.
the trial court did not err in dismissing appellant’s suit without a hearing.
system. See id. ' 14.005(a); Moore v. Zeller, 153 S.W.3d 262, 264 (Tex. App.- Beaumont 2004, pet.
s receipt of the written decisions within the thirty-one days preceding the date appellant filed suit.
day period. See Francis v. TDCJ-CID, 188 S.W.3d 799, 804-05 (Tex. App.- Fort Worth 2006, no pet.).
requirements of section 14.005. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.005(a); Moore, 153 S.W.
discretion in entering the order of dismissal.
States Constitution or the Texas Constitution?
constitutional law in dismissing appellant’s claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983.
Under the Supremacy Clause, a state law is without effect if it conflicts with federal law. Thomas v.
frivolous litigation as long as the rules are not pre-empted by federal law. See Thomas v. Bush, 23 S.
provisions, including a bar on frivolous lawsuits and a requirement to exhaust remedies. Bush, 23 S.W.
3d at 218 (citing 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(g) (West Supp. 2000) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (West Supp.
14.005 do not violate the Supremacy Clause. See Bush, 23 S.W.3d at 218; Wichita Gen. Hosp., 952 S.
right to file suit and the provisions do not authorize the court to refuse to hear meritorious claims.
its oath in applying Chapter 14 is without merit.
whether his request for the hearing was received or filed with the trial court.
14.005 violate the Open Courts provision); see also Spellmon v. Sweeney, 819 S.W.2d 206, 210 (Tex.
and Open Courts provisions of Texas Constitution).
court to timely and efficiently address legitimate claims. See Bush, 23 S.W.3d at 218; Randle, 26 S.W.
pet.); Randle, 26 S.W.3d at 515-16; see also Kelley, 2003 WL 21229275, at*4.
of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
appellant has waived these complaints. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(h); San Saba Energy, L.P. v.
support of the parties’ argument).
the Texas Bill of Right[s].” He cites the following cases: Logan v. Zimmerman Brush, Co., 455 U.S.
by the dismissal of his claims.
and that there is no meaningful distinction between “due course” and “due process.” See Univ. of Tex.
Med. Sch. v. Than, 901 S.W.2d 926, 929 (Tex. 1995).
presumes that the record supports the judgment. See Thomas v. Bilby, 40 S.W.3d 166, 168-69 (Tex.
party failed to file documents in compliance with section 14.004. Id. at 168; see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
Code Ann. § 14.003(c) (Vernon 2002).

References: § 14
 v.

 v. 
 § 14
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 14
 v.

 v. 
 § 1997
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 14