Case Name: James Lee SWEED, Appellant, v. CITY OF EL PASO, Appellee
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 2004-07-08
Citations: 139 S.W.3d 450
Docket Number: No. 08-03-00427-CV
Parties: James Lee SWEED, Appellant, v. CITY OF EL PASO, Appellee.
Judges: Before Panel No. 4 BARAJAS, C.J., LARSEN, and McCLURE, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 139
Pages: 450–455

Head Matter:
James Lee SWEED, Appellant, v. CITY OF EL PASO, Appellee.
No. 08-03-00427-CV.
Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso.
July 8, 2004.
James Lee Sweed, Gatesville, pro se.
F. Duane Force, Delgado Acosta Spencer Linebarger Heard & Perez LLP, Austin, for Appellee.
Before Panel No. 4 BARAJAS, C.J., LARSEN, and McCLURE, JJ.

Opinion:
OPINION
SUSAN LARSEN, Justice.
James Lee Sweed, an inmate in the Texas Department of Corrections, appeals the trial court's order dismissing his civil suit for want of prosecution. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Facts
On July 81, 2001, James Sweed filed a petition against the City of El Paso. He named himself and his deceased parents as petitioners under a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Sweed's petition claimed the City had wrongfully collected property taxes against himself and his parents for the years 1988 through 1993, when the property in question was owned by another individual. The City was served with the suit on October 29, 2001. The City filed special exceptions, a general denial, and affirmative defenses on November 16, 2001. Among other documents, Sweed filed a motion for post-answer default judgment, a motion for a bench trial date, a motion for summary judgment, and a motion to proceed under Tex. Civ. PRAC. & Rem.Code Ann. § 14.008, requesting that he be allowed to appear by videoconferencing technology or telephone. The record contains no action by the trial court on any of these motions. The City filed its motion to dismiss under Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 14, to which Sweed responded. The record contains no ruling on the City's motion either.
On June 13, 2003, the trial court sent to the parties its notice of intent to dismiss for want of prosecution, setting a dismissal hearing for July 23, 2003. Sweed filed his reply to the notice on June 30, 2003, stating among other things that hearings and trial on the merits should "be held by audio video tape because plaintiffs is confine [sic] in Texas prison." He also requested that the trial court set the case for trial on the merits.
Nevertheless, on August 13, 2003, the trial court dismissed the case pursuant to Rule 165a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. On August 29, 2003, Sweed filed his motion for reinstatement, urging that the trial court knew or should have known that Sweed was confined in Texas prison and had no way to appear for hearing other than through video technology or by telephone. The trial court did not rule on this motion. This appeal follows.
Standard of Review
We review the trial court's dismissal of a case for want of prosecution under an abuse of discretion standard. In re Marriage of Buster, 115 S.W.3d 141, 144 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, no pet.). A trial court abuses its discretion where it acts in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner, or without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex.1985).
Dismissal of inmate's lawsuit for want of prosecution
Trial courts have inherent power to dismiss cases for want of prosecution, and courts have express authority to do so under Tex.R. Civ. P. 165a. Alexander v. Lynda's Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845, 850 (Tex.2004). Here, as the trial court's order specifically relies upon Rule 165a, we will analyze the case under that authority. That rule states:
1. Failure to Appear. A case may be dismissed for want of prosecution on failure of any party seeking affirmative relief to appear for any hearing or trial of which the party had notice.... At the dismissal hearing, the court shall dismiss for want of prosecution unless there is good cause for the case to be maintained on the docket.... Tex.R. Civ. P. 165a(l).
This authority of the court is not without reasonable limits, however.
An inmate has a constitutional right to access the civil trial courts. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 523, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984). That right is not without limits, however. There is no absolute right for an inmate to appear in court in person in a civil case. Armstrong v. Randle, 881 S.W.2d 53, 56 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1994, writ denied). In considering an inmate's right to appear, courts follow a balancing approach, weighing the preservation of the correctional system's integrity against the prisoner's right of access, with a goal of achieving a balance that is fundamentally fair. Id. at 57. Where the court has determined that the inmate will not be allowed to appear personally, however, the inmate should be allowed to proceed by affidavit, deposition, telephone, or other effective means. Aguilar v. Alvarado, 39 S.W.3d 244, 248 (Tex. App.-Waco 1999, pet. denied).
Here, on at least three occasions, Sweed gave notice to the trial court that he was in prison and moved to proceed under Tex. Civ. PRAc. & Rem.Code Ann. § 14.008 by telephone or videoconferencing technology. The trial court never ruled upon Sweed's requests. Instead, the trial court sent out its notice of intent to dismiss for want of prosecution on June 13, 2003 and Sweed promptly responded in a reply filed June 30. In his response, Sweed pointed out he had filed his own motion for summary judgment, still pending before the trial court, and that "[pjlaintiffs filing motions after motions for an order on his motion for summary judgment would only overload the court and court clerk files with unnecessary...." Also in this reply, Sweed asks again that he be allowed to appear by "audio video tape" and that the case be set for hearing on the merits. The trial court nonetheless dismissed the case for want of prosecution. Moreover, after dismissal Sweed filed a motion to reinstate pointing out that the trial court knew or should have known that Sweed was incarcerated and had no way to appear for hearing other than through videoconferencing or telephone.
Thus, it appears that Sweed was attempting to prosecute his claims, and further that he did what he could to display good cause why his case should be maintained on the court's docket, as required by Rule 165a. He had obtained service on the City, he had served and obtained discovery, he had filed motions and responded promptly to the court's notice. The court did not rule on his motions, nor on the City's motion to dismiss, nor on any other pending matter save the notice of intent to dismiss for want of prosecution. Upon receiving the dismissal order, Sweed again promptly responded, requesting reinstatement. Under all these circumstances, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing this case for want of prosecution. See Buster, 115 S.W.3d at 145. Sweed's sole issue on appeal is therefore sustained.
Conclusion
The dismissal order is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Nothing in this opinion should be interpreted as addressing the merits of any pending motion in the trial court.
McCLURE, J., concurring.