Court Opinion

ID: 4069746
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-09-30 00:49:58.468572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:32:58.739509
License: Public Domain

ACCEPTED
                                                                                            06-15-00046-CV
                                                                                 SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                       TEXARKANA, TEXAS
                                                                                      12/17/2015 2:50:54 PM
                                                                                           DEBBIE AUTREY
                                                                                                     CLERK

                     No. 06-15-00046-CV                                    FILED IN
                                                                    6th COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                      TEXARKANA, TEXAS
                              In the Court of Appeals               12/17/2015 2:50:54 PM
                           For the Sixth Judicial District               DEBBIE AUTREY
                                                                             Clerk
                            Sitting at Texarkana, Texas

                       EDDIE ANTHONY PATTERSON,
                                Appellant

                                          v.

               TV CHANNEL 25 BROADCAST STATION AND
                   ITS REPORTER ON MARCH 29, 2010,
                              Appellee

                      Appealed from 170th Judicial District Court
                             McLennan County, Texas

                              Appellee’s Brief
                                        Neal E. Pirkle
                                        State Bar No. 00794464
                                        pirkle@namanhowell.com
                                        Robert R. Little
                                        State Bar No. 24050940
                                        little@namanhowell.com
                                        Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee, PLLC
                                        400 Austin Avenue, 8th Floor
                                        Waco, Texas 76701
                                        254-755-4100
                                        254-754-6331 (fax)
                                        Attorneys for Appellee

{03681434.DOC / 2}
                     No. 06-15-00046-CV
                                     In the Court of Appeals
                                  For the Sixth Judicial District
                                   Sitting at Texarkana, Texas

                           EDDIE ANTHONY PATTERSON,
                                    Appellant

                                                       v.

               TV CHANNEL 25 BROADCAST STATION AND
                   ITS REPORTER ON MARCH 29, 2010,
                              Appellee

                              Certificate of Parties and Attorneys

        Pursuant to Rule 38.1(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, Centex

Television Limited Partnership, Appellee, supplies the following list of parties to

the orders appealed from, and the names and addresses of counsel:

Parties

Eddie Anthony Patterson. . ................................................................
                                                                      Appellant

Centex Television Limited Partnership. ................................
                                                              Appellee

{03681434.DOC / 2}                                 i
Attorneys

Neal E. Pirkle ................................................................Trial and Appellate
Robert R. Little                                                               Counsel for
Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee                                                     Appellee/Defendant
P.O. Box 1470
Waco, Texas 76703
(254) 755-4100
(254) 754-6331 (facsimile)

                                                                      Pro Se
Eddie Anthony Patterson ................................................................
Inmate T.D.C.J. #01635370
C.T. Terrell Unit
1300 FM 655
Rosharon, Texas 77583

                                                   /s/ Neal E. Pirkle
                                                   Neal E. Pirkle

{03681434.DOC / 2}                                ii
                     No. 06-15-00046-CV
                             In the Court of Appeals
                          For the Sixth Judicial District
                           Sitting at Texarkana, Texas

                       EDDIE ANTHONY PATTERSON,
                                Appellant

                                            v.

               TV CHANNEL 25 BROADCAST STATION AND
                   ITS REPORTER ON MARCH 29, 2010,
                              Appellee

                       Statement Regarding Oral Argument

        Appellee does not believe oral argument is necessary for this matter.

However, in the event that the Court believes that oral argument will assist in the

decision of this matter, Appellee wishes to participate. Appellee stands ready to

participate in oral argument if the Court should determine it is beneficial.

{03681434.DOC / 2}                    iii
                                                    Table of Contents

Certificate of Parties and Attorneys ..................................................................................... i

Statement Regarding Oral Argument ................................................................................. iii

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ iv

Index of Authorities............................................................................................................. vi

Statement of the Case .......................................................................................................... 2

Statement of the Issues ........................................................................................................ 4

          Issue No. 1: ............................................................................................................... 4

          The Trial Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Appellant’s
          Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ....................................................................... 4

          Issue No. 2: ............................................................................................................... 4

          The Trial Court did not err in granting Centex Television’s Motion to
          Dismiss. .................................................................................................................... 4

          A. Pursuant to Chapter 16 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies
          Code, Appellant’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations......................... 4

          B. Appellant’s claims for defamation were properly dismissed
          because the Appellant cannot make a prima facie cause of action for
          such claim. ................................................................................................................ 4

          C. Appellant’s claims for constitutional violations were properly
          dismissed because Centex Television is not a state actor and because
          Plaintiff nonsuited these claims by his own admissions. ......................................... 4

Statement of the Facts.......................................................................................................... 4

Summary of the Argument .................................................................................................. 6

The Standard of Review .................................................................................................... 12

Argument of the Issues ...................................................................................................... 13

          Issue No. 1: The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion When It
          Denied Appellant’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ..................................... 13

{03681434.DOC / 2}                                           iv
         Issue No. 2: The Trial Court Did Not Err In Granting Centex
         Television’s Motion to Dismiss. ............................................................................ 17

         A. Pursuant to Chapter 16 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies
         Code, Appellant’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. ..................... 17

         B. Appellant’s claims for defamation were properly dismissed
         because the Appellant cannot make a prima facie cause of action for
         such claim. .............................................................................................................. 21

         C. Appellant’s claims for constitutional violations were properly
         dismissed because Centex Television is not a state actor and because
         Plaintiff nonsuited these claims by his own admissions. ........................................ 23

Conclusion & Prayer ......................................................................................................... 24

{03681434.DOC / 2}                                          v
                                                    Index of Authorities

Cases
Allen v. Port Drum Co., 777 S.W.2d 776 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1989, writ
  denied) ........................................................................................................................... 23

Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40 (U.S. 1999) .................................... 13, 27

Assoc. Press v. Cook, 17 S.W.3d 447 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no
  pet.) .......................................................................................................................... 11, 25

Bell Publishing Co. v. Garnett Engineering Co., 141 Tex. 51 (1943) ........................ 12, 25

Coleman v. Lynaugh, 934 S.W.2d 837 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no
  writ) ................................................................................................................................ 14

Crites v. Mullins, 697 S.W.2d 715 (Tex. App. -- Corpus Christi 1985, writ ref'd
  n.r.e.) ........................................................................................................................ 12, 25

Dolcefino v. Randolph, 19 S.W.3d 906 (Tex. App.--Houston[14th Dist.] 2000,
 pet. denied)..................................................................................................................... 26

Fort Worth Press Co. v. Davis, 96 S.W.2d 416 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Fort Worth
  1936, writ ref'd).............................................................................................................. 12

Gibson v. Tolbert, 102 S.W.3d 710 (Tex. 2003) ........................................... 7, 8, 16, 17, 19

Hall v. Treon, 39 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2001, no pet.) ................................ 13

Hines v. Massey, 79 S.W.3d 269 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2002, no pet.) ........................... 13

Kelley v. Rinkle, 532 S.W.2d 947 (Tex. 1976) .............................................................. 9, 20

Lassiter v. Department of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 101 S. Ct. 2153, 2159, 68
L. Ed. 2d 640, 649 (1981) .............................................................................................. 16

McIlvain v. Jacobs, 794 S.W.2d 14 (Tex. 1990) ......................................................... 25, 26

Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986) .................................. 11, 25

Shivers v. State, 873 S.W.2d 704 n.3 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1994, no pet.) ......................... 18

Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Mayfield, 923 S.W.2d 590 (Tex. 1996) ....................... 7, 16, 19

{03681434.DOC / 2}                                            vi
Walker v. Schion , 420 S.W.3d 454 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no
 pet.) .......................................................................................................................... 14, 15
Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985) ....................................................................... 10, 21

Statutes
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003(a) .................................................................. 10, 20
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §132.001 (2014) .......................................................... 17, 18
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code, Section 27.002 ............................................................ 2, 5, 9
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §27.005 ................................................................................ 9

Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. Section 24.016 (2014)............................................................ passim

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a ............................................................................. passim

{03681434.DOC / 2}                                          vii
                     No. 06-15-00046-CV
                             In the Court of Appeals
                          For the Sixth Judicial District
                           Sitting at Texarkana, Texas

                       EDDIE ANTHONY PATTERSON,
                                Appellant

                                           v.

               TV CHANNEL 25 BROADCAST STATION AND
                   ITS REPORTER ON MARCH 29, 2010,
                              Appellee

                                Appellee’s Brief

To the Honorable Court of Appeals:

        Comes now Centex Television Limited Partnership (incorrectly named by

Plaintiff/Appellant as “TV Channel 25 Broadcast Station and Its Reporter on

March 29, 2010” in the original pleading filed by the Appellant in the Trial Court),

as Appellee, and files this Brief. In this Brief, every effort will be made to refer to

the parties by name.

{03681434.DOC / 2}                     1
                               Statement of the Case
        This case involves the broadcast of a news story on March 29, 2010 by

Centex Television Limited Partnership (hereinafter sometimes referred to as

“Centex Television”) regarding the conviction of Eddie Anthony Patterson for

aggravated kidnapping. Eddie Anthony Patterson originally brought this case by

filing his “Brief Statement of this Cause of Action/Claim for Damages/Relief”

(hereinafter “Brief Statement”) on March 13, 2015 in the 170th Judicial District

Court of McLennan County, Texas against “TV Channel 25 Broadcast Station and

Its Reporter on March 29, 2010.” On or about March 27, 2015, “TV Channel 25

Broadcast Station” was served with Eddie Anthony Patterson’s Brief Statement.

On April 10, 2015, Centex Television Limited Partnership, which was incorrectly

named by Eddie Anthony Patterson as “TV Channel 25 Broadcast Station and Its

Reporter on March 29, 2015,” filed its Original Answer. On April 10, 2015,

Centex Television Limited Partnership also filed its Motion to Dismiss pursuant to

Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a and/or Section 27.002 of the Civil Practice &

Remedies Code.

        Eddie Anthony Patterson asserted claims against Centex Television for: (1)

slander, libel and/or defamation; and (2) violations of alleged constitutional rights.

Centex Television sought dismissal of all of Mr. Patterson’s causes of action

because (1) the statute of limitations had run for any potential claim, (2) Centex

{03681434.DOC / 2}                     2
Television could not have committed constitutional violations against Mr.

Patterson because Centex Television is not a state actor, and (3) Mr. Patterson

could not make a prima facie case of defamation because the broadcast was true, or

at a minimum, substantially true, and because there was not wrongful conduct by

Centex Television.

        While the Motion to Dismiss was pending, Eddie Anthony Patterson filed

his “Motion for Recruitment of IOLTA Punded or Pro Bono Counsel” (which the

Trial Court interpreted to be and was referred to as “Plaintiff’s Motion for

Recruitment of IOLTA Funded or Pro Bono Counsel.” In this Motion, Appellant

Eddie Anthony Patterson requested an order appointing counsel to represent him in

this civil matter.   On June 19, 2015, the Trial Court denied Eddie Anthony

Patterson’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel and granted the Motion to Dismiss

of Centex Television. It is from that order that Appellant appeals.

{03681434.DOC / 2}                    3
                               Statement of the Issues

Issue No. 1:

The Trial Court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Appellant’s
Motion for Appointment of Counsel.

Issue No. 2:

The Trial Court did not err in granting Centex Television’s Motion to
Dismiss.

        A.       Pursuant to Chapter 16 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies
                 Code, Appellant’s claims were barred by the statute of
                 limitations.

        B.       Appellant’s claims for defamation were properly dismissed
                 because the Appellant cannot make a prima facie cause of action
                 for such claim.

        C.       Appellant’s claims for constitutional violations were properly
                 dismissed because Centex Television is not a state actor and
                 because Plaintiff nonsuited these claims by his own admissions.

                                Statement of the Facts

        This is a defamation case that stems from the June 24, 2009, sexual assault

of a female by the Appellant, Eddie Anthony Patterson. (C.R. 27). On March 29,

2010, Eddie Anthony Patterson pled guilty to aggravated kidnapping from this

event. (C.R. 26-31). On that same day, Centex Television broadcast a story

concerning his conviction for aggravated kidnapping, which he had previously

confessed of and pled guilty to. (C.R. 22-31). This was part of a plea arrangement

{03681434.DOC / 2}                     4
between the State of Texas and the Defendant Eddie Anthony Patterson. (C.R. 26-

31).

        As part of the plea arrangement, Eddie Anthony Patterson confessed to and

admitted to “intentionally or knowingly . . . inflict[ing] bodily injury on” his

victim. (C.R. 27). He also confessed to terroriz[ing] his victim, and “intentionally

or knowingly abduct[ing]” his victim. (C.R. 27). Appellant Patterson then pled

guilty to Aggravated Kidnapping. (C.R. 30). On the same day as his conviction,

Centex Television reported the details of Eddie Anthony Patterson’s conviction

and the events had occurred earlier that day in the criminal court. (C.R. 22-25).

        Eddie Anthony Patterson brought this suit against “TV Channel 25

Broadcast Station and Its Reporter on March 29, 2010” on March 13, 2015 in a

pleading he entitled “Brief Statement of this Cause of Action/Claim for

Damages/Relief.” (C.R. 5-6) Centex Television, as the proper entity, filed its

Original Answer on April 10, 2015. (C.R. 11-12). Simultaneously with the filing

of its Original Answer, Centex Television filed its Motion to Dismiss pursuant to

Rule 91a and/or Section 27.002 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code. (C.R. 13-

31). On or about April 30, 2015, Appellant then filed his Motion for Recruitment

of Counsel. (C.R. 33). On June 19, 2015, the Trial Court denied Appellant’s

request for counsel and granted the Motion to Dismiss. (C.R. 40). Subsequently,

Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal. (C.R. 41).

{03681434.DOC / 2}                    5
        In the Trial Court, the Appellant never mentioned a previous lawsuit. (C.R.

1-61). However, in his brief, Appellant Eddie Anthony Patterson tries to toll the

statute of limitations by referencing that “this LAWSUIT was a SUPPLIMENTAL

PLEADING to an Original Lawsuit that was Filed in a timely fashion in the Wrong

Jurisdiction.” (Appellant’s Brief pg. 4). Based upon Appellant’s allegations in his

brief, counsel for Centex Television found a matter brought by Eddie Anthony

Patterson against Beth Toben, TV Channel 25 Broadcast Station, the Court

Reporter Employed by McLennan County of Texas, and the McLennan County

Records Department. (Appendix B, 1-23). This lawsuit in Federal Court was filed

on February 27, 2012 by Eddie Anthony Patterson. (Appendix B, 1-9). Appellant

then filed a Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Objection on July 14, 2014. (Appendix

B, 16).       The federal lawsuit brought by Eddie Anthony Patterson was then

dismissed by Order of the Honorable Walter S. Smith, Jr. on July 16, 2014.

(Appendix B, 18). This Order dismissing the lawsuit does not indicate that it is a

dismissal because of lack of jurisdiction. (Appendix B, 18).

                            Summary of the Argument
        The Trial Court properly refused to appoint counsel to Eddie Anthony

Patterson. Except in a few statutorily created circumstances, trial courts have

discretion to appoint counsel for indigent litigants in civil cases. Tex. Gov’t Code

Ann. Section 24.016 (2014). Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Mayfield, 923 S.W.2d

{03681434.DOC / 2}                    6
590, 593 (Tex. 1996); Gibson v. Tolbert, 102 S.W.3d 710, 712 (Tex. 2003)(listing

the statutorily created circumstances for required appointment of counsel). Only in

exceptional circumstances could a trial court appoint counsel to an indigent civil

litigant, and only after the litigant files an affidavit that he is too poor to employ

counsel.       Gibson, 102 S.W.3d at 713.     In evaluating what might constitute

exceptional circumstances, courts are to consider the unique circumstances of the

case and determine whether the trial court had no reasonable alternative but to

appoint counsel. Id.

        In this matter, the Trial Court properly refused to appoint counsel for two

reasons. First, the Appellant never filed a document that would qualify as an

affidavit that he was too poor to employ counsel. This is a prerequisite for the

appointment of counsel.       Second, this case is not the type of exceptional

circumstances that would justify appointment of counsel.           This is a simple

defamation case. There is nothing about this case that makes the public or private

interests at stake such that the administration of justice is best served by appointing

a lawyer to represent the civil litigant. Travelers, 923 S.W.2d at 594; Gibson, 102

S.W.3d at, 712. There is nothing complex about this case. It is a defamation case

brought based upon a broadcast concerning a felony conviction. If this is the type

of case that requires the appointment of counsel, every case brought by a pro se

litigant that concerns a tort would require a trial court to appoint counsel. Both of

{03681434.DOC / 2}                     7
these reasons standing alone demonstrate that the Trial Court did not abuse its

discretion in refusing to appoint counsel.

        The Trial Court properly dismissed Eddie Anthony Patterson’s claims.

Centex Television filed its Motion to Dismiss in the Trial Court under the authority

of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 91a and under Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil

Practice and Remedies Code. Under Rule 91a, the Trial Court shall dismiss a

cause of action that has no basis in law or fact. Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a.1. Centex

Television also files this Motion to Dismiss pursuant to the Citizens Participation

Act.      This Act became law in 2011, and was intended to “encourage and

safeguard” the constitutional right to free speech, along with other basic First

Amendment rights. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §27.002. Accordingly, the

Citizens Protection Act provides that actions like this one, which relate to or arise

out of a party’s exercise of their right of free speech, shall be dismissed unless the

plaintiff can establish a prima facie case on each essential element of the claim in

question. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §27.005.

        Dismissal by the Trial Court was proper.       All of Appellant Patterson’s

causes of action are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Second, the

cause of action really being brought by Eddie Anthony Patterson is for defamation

and he can not establish a prima facie case for the necessary elements. Finally,

Eddie Anthony Patterson’s claims for any constitutional violations against Centex

{03681434.DOC / 2}                     8
Television were properly dismissed because Centex Television is not a

governmental actor and Appellant Patterson admitted that the claims for

constitutional violations are not longer part of this suit. (Appellant’s Brief pg. 4).

Therefore, the Trial Court properly dismissed Plaintiff’s claims.

        The claims brought herein are barred by the statute of limitations. The event

that Eddie Anthony Patterson complains of occurred on March 29, 2010. (C.R. 5-

6). The statute of limitations for libel, slander, and defamation is one year. Kelley

v. Rinkle, 532 S.W.2d 947, 949 (Tex. 1976). Under Texas law, a claim for torts,

like negligence or intentional infliction of emotional distress, must be brought

within the two-year statute of limitations.         Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §

16.003(a).           Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has held that the

limitations for Constitutional violations are best characterized as personally injury

claims, which have a two year statute in Texas. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261,

278 (1985). All of the conceivable tort claims that Plaintiff could be alleging

either have a one year or a two year statute of limitations. Appeallant filed this

lawsuit over 4 years and 11 months after the events of the occurrence in question.

Therefore, it is clear that all of Plaintiff’s claims, whether libel, slander,

defamation or constitutional violations are barred by the applicable statute of

limitations.

{03681434.DOC / 2}                         9
        For the first time in this appeal, Eddie Anthony Patterson tries to toll the

statute of limitations by referencing that “this LAWSUIT was a SUPPLIMENTAL

PLEADING to an Original Lawsuit that was Filed in a timely fashion in the Wrong

Jurisdiction.” (Appellant’s Brief pg. 4). This argument fails for several reasons as

set forth in more detail below. First, there was nothing in the record for the Trial

Court to consider regarding a previous lawsuit. Second, the previous federal

lawsuit does not meet the statutory requirements to toll a statue of limitations.

Third, even if this Court is to consider the previous lawsuit, this matter is still

untimely. Therefore, dismissal of the Appellant’s claims was proper based upon

the statute of limitations.

        The Trial Court properly dismissed the claims of Eddie Anthony Patterson

because he could not establish a prima facie claim of defamation. In order to

establish a prima facie cause of action for defamation, a plaintiff must prove that

the defendant (1) published a false statement about the plaintiff, (2) that statement

was defamatory, and (3) that the defendant made the statement while acting with

either actual malice, if the plaintiff was a public official or public figure, or

negligence, if the plaintiff was a private individual, regarding the truth of the

statement. Assoc. Press v. Cook, 17 S.W.3d 447, 452 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st

Dist.] 2000, no pet.). A “private-figure plaintiff must bear the burden of showing

that the speech at issue is false before recovering damages for defamation from a

{03681434.DOC / 2}                    10
media defendant.” Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 787

(1986). Under Texas law, a media defendant need only prove that what they

published or broadcast was “substantially true” in order to defeat a claim for

defamation or slander. Crites v. Mullins, 697 S.W.2d 715, 717 (Tex. App. --

Corpus Christi 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Fort Worth Press Co. v. Davis, 96 S.W.2d
416, 419 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Fort Worth 1936, writ ref'd); see also Bell Publishing

Co. v. Garnett Engineering Co., 141 Tex. 51, 60 (1943).

        In the Trial Court, Eddie Anthony Patterson failed to make a prima facie

case of defamation because he failed to establish (1) Centex Television published a

false statement about him, and (2) that Centex Television acted with either actual

malice or negligence.    An absence of either one of these three elements and

Appellants case must fail. Two of the elements are missing. Therefore, the Trial

Court properly dismissed the claims of Eddie Anthony Patterson.

        Eddie Anthony Patterson’s constitutional claims were also properly

dismissed by the Trial Court. To be liable for a constitutional violation, the

Defendant must be a state actor. To state a claim for relief, the Plaintiff must

establish that he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution of the United

States, and that the alleged deprivation was committed under color of state law.

Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (U.S. 1999). The state-

action requirement excludes from its reach “merely private conduct, no matter how

{03681434.DOC / 2}                   11
discriminatory or wrongful.” Id. Here, Centex Television is a privately owned

business. It is not an arm of the government. As such, Centex Television cannot

be liable to the Plaintiff for any constitutional violations. Therefore, the Trial

Court properly dismissed Eddie Anthony Patterson’s claims for constitutional

violations. Further, Appellant admits that the claims for constitutional violations

are not longer part of this suit. (Appellant’s Brief pg. 4).

                              The Standard of Review
        In reviewing the Trial Court's ruling on Appellant Eddie Anthony

Patterson’s request for counsel, the appellate court uses the abuse of discretion

standard. Hines v. Massey, 79 S.W.3d 269, 272 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2002, no

pet.); see also Hall v. Treon, 39 S.W.3d 722, 724 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2001, no

pet.); Coleman v. Lynaugh, 934 S.W.2d 837, 839 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.]

1996, no writ). Only if the trial court abused its discretion in failing to appoint

counsel, can the appellate court reverse. Id.

        With regard to a motion to dismiss under Rule 91a and Chapter 27 of the

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, both are reviewed under the de novo

standard. Walker v. Schion , 420 S.W.3d 454, 457 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.]

2014, no pet.); Wooley v. Schaffer, 447 S.W.3d 71, 74-75 (Tex. App.-Houston

[14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied).     However, what is reviewed under a Motion to

Dismiss under the Citizens Participation Act and Rule 91a differ. Under the

{03681434.DOC / 2}                     12
Citizens Participation Act, the appellate court determines “de novo whether the

record contains a minimum quantum of clear and specific evidence that, unaided

by inferences, would establish each essential element of the claim in question if no

contrary evidence is offered.” Walker, 420 S.W.3d at 457. Further, the trial court

when considering a Motion to Dismiss under the Citizens Participation Act “shall

consider the pleadings and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts on

which the liability or defense is based.” Id.; Tex. R. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.

§27.006(a). However, under a Rule 91a Motion to Dismiss, the court looks at the

pleadings and pleader’s intent. Wooley, 447 S.W.3d at 75. Rule 91a requires the

Court to determine whether a “reasonable person could believe the facts pleaded”

to determine whether a pleading has a basis in fact. Id.; Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a.1.

                              Argument of the Issues

Issue No. 1: The Trial Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion When It Denied
             Appellant’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel.

        The Trial Court properly refused to appoint counsel to Eddie Anthony

Patterson. Generally, a civil litigant has no state or federal constitutional right to

the appointment of counsel. See Lassiter v. Department of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S.
18, 26-27, 101 S. Ct. 2153, 2159, 68 L. Ed. 2d 640, 649 (1981); Travelers Indem.

Co. v. Mayfield, 923 S.W.2d 590, 593 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding). Except in a

few statutorily created circumstances, trial courts have discretion to appoint

{03681434.DOC / 2}                    13
counsel for indigent litigants in civil cases. Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 24.016

(2014); Travelers Indemnity Co., 923 S.W.2d at 593; Gibson v. Tolbert, 102
S.W.3d 710, 712 (Tex. 2003)(listing the statutorily created circumstances for

required appointment of counsel).

        The Texas Supreme Court has never held that a civil litigant must be

represented by counsel in order for a court to carry on its essential, constitutional

function. Travelers Indemnity Co., 923 S.W.2d at 594. Only in exceptional

circumstances, a trial court could appoint counsel to an indigent civil litigant, and

only after the litigant files an affidavit that he is too poor to employ counsel.

Gibson, 102 S.W.3d at 713.       In evaluating what might constitute exceptional

circumstances, courts are to consider the unique circumstances of the case and

determine whether the trial court had no reasonable alternative but to appoint

counsel. Id. The Texas Supreme Court has stated it is “easier to determine what is

not exceptional than to pronounce a general proposition on what would be

exceptional.” Id.

        In this matter, the Trial Court properly refused to appoint counsel for the

Appellant because he never filed a document that would qualify as an affidavit that

he was too poor to employ counsel. The filing of such affidavit, or a proper

substitute, is clearly a prerequisite for the appointment of counsel under Section

24.016 of the Texas Government Code. Tex. Gov. Code § 24.016 (2014).

{03681434.DOC / 2}                    14
        In an attempt to comply with Section 24.016, Appellant Eddie Anthony

Patterson filed Plaintiff’s Declaration of Inability to Pay Costs. (C.R. 8). Instead

of providing an affidavit, Appellant provided a document to the Trial Court

pursuant to Section 132.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. This

section allows an inmate to provide an unsworn declaration in lieu of an affidavit if

the declaration is, among other things, (1) in writing, (2) “subscribed” by the

person making the declaration, and (3) made under the penalty of perjury. Tex.

Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §132.001 (2014). Subscribed means to “sign at the end of

the document.” Shivers v. State, 873 S.W.2d 704, 708-09 n.3 (Tex. App.-El Paso

1994, no pet.).

        The Appellant, Eddie Anthony Patterson, did not sign his declaration. (C.R.

8). Therefore, he did not comply with the requirements of Section 132.001 of the

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Without having provided an affidavit, or

a suitable substitute under Section 132.001, Eddie Anthony Patterson failed to

comply with the requirements of Section 24.016 of the Texas Government Code,

and the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Appellants request

for counsel.

        The Trial Court did not abuse it discretion by not appointing counsel for the

Appellant for an additional reason: this case is not the type of exceptional

circumstance that warrants the appointment of counsel. The present case is a

{03681434.DOC / 2}                    15
simple defamation case. There is nothing about this case that makes the public or

private interests at stake such that the administration of justice is best served by

appointing a lawyer to represent the civil litigant. Travelers, 923 S.W.2d at 594;

Gibson, 102 S.W.3d at, 712. There is nothing complex about this case. It is a

defamation case brought based upon a broadcast concerning a felony conviction.

(C.R. 26-31). If this is the type of case that requires the appointment of counsel,

every case brought by a pro se litigant that concerns a tort would require a trial

court to appoint counsel.

        As previously stated by the Texas Supreme Court, it is “easier to determine

what is not exceptional than to pronounce a general proposition on what would be

exceptional.” Gibson, 102 S.W.3d at 713. It is clear that this is not the type of

matter that is exceptional. Further, there are no appellate court opinions finding a

case is exceptional under the Section 24.016. Given the nature of this case, if some

of the more unusual cases have been held to not be exceptional, this matter can not

be exceptional. Therefore, the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in not

appointing counsel to the Appellant.

        Either of the two above reasons, standing alone, demonstrate that the Trial

Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to appoint counsel. Therefore, this

Court should affirm the Trial Court’s denial of the Motion to Appoint Counsel.

{03681434.DOC / 2}                     16
Issue No. 2: The Trial Court Did Not Err In Granting Centex Television’s
             Motion to Dismiss.

        A. Pursuant to Chapter 16 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code,
           Appellant’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations.

        The claims brought by Eddie Anthony Patterson are barred by the statute of

limitations. The broadcast about which Eddie Anthony Patterson complains, and

which forms the basis for all of Eddie Anthony Patterson’s claims in the present

case, aired on March 29, 2010 broadcast. (C.R. 5-6). Therefore, all of Eddie

Anthony Patterson’s claims accrued on March 29, 2010. However, the present

case was not filed until March 13, 2015, almost five years from the date in

question. Therefore, the claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

        The statute of limitations for libel, slander, and defamation is one year.

Kelley v. Rinkle, 532 S.W.2d 947, 949 (Tex. 1976). Under Texas law, a claim for

negligence or personal injury must be brought within the two-year statute of

limitations. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003(a). Further, the statute of

limitations for intentional infliction of emotional distress is two years.      Id.

Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has held that the limitations for

Constitutional violations are best characterized as personally injury claims, which

have a two year statute in Texas. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 278 (1985).

        The gist of Eddie Anthony Patterson’s complaint is defamation. Therefore,

his lawsuit is barred by the one year limitations for defamation. Even giving Mr.

{03681434.DOC / 2}                    17
Patterson all benefits concerning the limitations period, his lawsuit is barred by

limitation. All conceivable tort claims that Plaintiff could be alleging either have a

one year or a two year statute of limitations, at most. Appellant filed this lawsuit

over 4 years and 11 months after the events of the occurrence in question.

Therefore, it is clear that all of Plaintiff’s claims; whether libel, slander,

defamation or constitutional violations, are barred by the applicable statute of

limitations.

        For the first time in this appeal, Eddie Anthony Patterson tries to toll the

statute of limitations by referencing that “this LAWSUIT was a SUPPLIMENTAL

PLEADING to an Original Lawsuit that was Filed in a timely fashion in the Wrong

Jurisdiction.” (Appellant’s Brief pg. 4). This argument fails for several reasons.

First, there was nothing in the record for the Trial Court to consider regarding a

previous lawsuit.     Second, the previous lawsuit does not meet the statutory

requirements to toll a statue of limitations. Third, even if this Court is to consider

the previous lawsuit, this matter is still untimely. Therefore, dismissal of the

Appellant’s claims was proper based upon the statute of limitations.

        The statute of limitations is not tolled because Eddie Anthony Patterson did

not provide the trial court with a record of his previous lawsuit. (C.R. 1-61).

Therefore, there was nothing for the Trial Court to consider that would have

allowed the statute of limitations to be tolled under § 16.064 of the Texas Civil

{03681434.DOC / 2}                    18
Practice & Remedies Code. Therefore, the dismissal by the Trial Court was proper

and the judgment should be affirmed.

        Even through there is nothing in the record to support these facts, Appellant

Eddie Anthony Patterson brought suit against Beth Toben, TV Channel 25

Broadcast Station, the Court Reporter Employed by McLennan County of Texas,

and the McLennan County Records Department.             (Appendix B, 1-23).      This

lawsuit was filed in Federal Court on February 27, 2012 by Eddie Anthony

Patterson. (Appendix B, 1-9). Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of

Objection on July 14, 2014. (Appendix B, 16). The federal lawsuit brought by

Eddie Anthony Patterson was then dismissed by Order of the Honorable Walter S.

Smith, Jr. on July 16, 2014. (Appendix B, 18). This Order dismissing the lawsuit

does not indicate that it is a dismissal because of lack of jurisdiction. (Appendix B,

18). A dismissal in federal court must indicate that the dismissal is for lack of

jurisdiction for section 16.064 to apply. Allen v. Port Drum Co., 777 S.W.2d 776,

778 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1989, writ denied). The federal court order did not

indicate that the lack of jurisdiction was the reason for dismissal. (Appendix B,

18). Section 16.064 does not apply. Therefore, the tolling statute does not apply

and Eddie Anthony Patterson’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations.

        Finally, even if this Court were to assume that § 16.064 applies and tolls the

statute of limitations during the pendency of the federal matter, Eddie Anthony

{03681434.DOC / 2}                     19
Patterson’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations. The broadcast that

Appellant complains of occurred on March 29, 2010. (C.R. 5-7, 22-25). The

federal lawsuit was not filed by Eddie Anthony Patterson until February 27, 2012.

(Appendix B, 1-9). The time between the incident in question and the filing of the

federal lawsuit was 1 year, 10 months and 28 days. Thus, the claims asserted by

Eddie Anthony Patterson, which amount to nothing more than an allegation of

defamation, are barred by the 1 year statute of limitations.

        However, if we continue the analysis, the federal lawsuit was dismissed on

July 16, 2012. (Appendix B, 18). If the 60 days are then added following the

dismissal (pursuant to Section 16.064), we have the date of September 14, 2012.

The lawsuit in question was not filed until March 13, 2015. (C.R. 5). The time

between the 60th day after dismissal of the federal lawsuit and the filing of this

lawsuit adds an additional 1 year, 5 months and 20 days to the timeline. This

means if this Court were to assume that the tolling statute applies, which it does

not, then 3 years, 4 months and 17 days passed in which there was no tolling of

limitations before the Appellant filed suit.     Therefore, giving Eddie Anthony

Patterson all the benefits of the doubt under the statute of limitations, all

conceivable claims that he could have asserted were barred.

        There is no conceivable factual basis in the record or otherwise that would

allow Eddie Anthony Patterson’s claims to exist because they were barred by the

{03681434.DOC / 2}                    20
statute of limitations.   Therefore, the Trial Court properly dismissed Eddie

Anthony Patterson’s claims. Therefore, this Court should affirm the trial court’s

dismissal of this suit.

        B. Appellant’s claims for defamation were properly dismissed because the
           Appellant cannot make a prima facie cause of action for such claim.

        The Trial Court properly dismissed the claims of Eddie Anthony Patterson

because he could not establish a prima facie claim of defamation. In order to

establish a prima facie cause of action for defamation, a plaintiff must prove that

the defendant (1) published a false statement about the plaintiff, (2) that statement

was defamatory, and (3) that the defendant made the statement while acting with

either actual malice, if the plaintiff was a public official or public figure, or

negligence, if the plaintiff was a private individual, regarding the truth of the

statement. Assoc. Press v. Cook, 17 S.W.3d 447, 452 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st

Dist.] 2000, no pet.). In Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767

(1986), the United States Supreme Court held that a “private-figure plaintiff must

bear the burden of showing that the speech at issue is false before recovering

damages for defamation from a media defendant.” Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.

v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986).

        Under Texas law, a media defendant need only prove that what they

published or broadcast was “substantially true” in order to defeat a claim for

{03681434.DOC / 2}                    21
defamation or slander. Crites v. Mullins, 697 S.W.2d 715, 717 (Tex. App. --

Corpus Christi 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Fort Worth Press Co. v. Davis, 96 S.W.2d
416, 419 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Fort Worth 1936, writ ref'd); see also Bell Publishing

Co. v. Garnett Engineering Co., 141 Tex. 51, 60 (1943).                 A statement is

substantially true, and thus not actionable, if its "gist" or "sting" is not substantially

worse than the literal truth. McIlvain v. Jacobs, 794 S.W.2d 14, 16 (Tex. 1990);

Dolcefino v. Randolph, 19 S.W.3d 906, 921 (Tex. App.--Houston[14th Dist.] 2000,

pet. denied). The Court need only determine whether, in the mind of the average

person who read the statement, the alleged defamatory statement was more

damaging to the plaintiff's reputation than a truthful statement would have been.

McIlvain, 794 S.W.2d at 16; Dolcefino, 19 S.W.3d at 921. Thus, if the gist of the

statement is no more damaging than an absolutely truthful statement would have

been then the statement is considered substantially true and non-actionable.

        In the Trial Court, Eddie Anthony Patterson failed to make a prima facie

case of defamation because he failed to establish that Centex Television published

a false statement about him. A review of everything in the record shows that the

broadcast was true, or at a minimum, substantially true. (C.R. 26-30). Eddie

Anthony Patterson did not establish that the broadcast was false. Therefore, the

Trial Court properly dismissed Eddie Anthony Patterson’s claims and the

Judgment should be affirmed.

{03681434.DOC / 2}                      22
        There was also no showing in the Trial Court that Centex Television acted

with either actual malice or negligence. A necessary element for a claim of

defamation is wrongful conduct. There was no showing in the Trial Court that

Centex Television acted with malice or negligence. Without a showing or an

essential element of Appellant’s claim for defamation, the claim must be

dismissed.

        With an absence of either one of these two elements, Appellants case must

fail. With missing elements to his claim, the Trial Court properly dismissed the

claims of Eddie Anthony Patterson.

        C. Appellant’s claims for constitutional violations were properly dismissed
           because Centex Television is not a state actor and because Plaintiff
           nonsuited these claims by his own admissions.

        Eddie Anthony Patterson’s constitutional claims were also properly

dismissed by the Trial Court. To be liable for a constitutional violation, the

Defendant must be a state actor. To state a claim for relief, the Plaintiff must

establish that he was deprived of a right secured by the Constitution of the United

States, and that the alleged deprivation was committed under color of state law.

Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 49-50 (U.S. 1999). The state-

action requirement excludes from its reach “merely private conduct, no matter how

discriminatory or wrongful.” Id. Here, Centex Television is a privately owned

business. (C.R.21). It is not an arm of the government. (C.R. 21). As such,

{03681434.DOC / 2}                    23
Centex Television cannot be liable to the Plaintiff for any constitutional violations.

Therefore, the Trial Court properly dismissed Eddie Anthony Patterson’s

Plaintiff’s claims for constitutional violations.

         Appellants claims for constitutional violations were also properly dismissed

because they were abandoned by Eddie Anthony Patterson. Appellant admits that

the claims for constitutional violations are not longer part of this suit. (Appellant’s

Brief pg. 4). Therefore, the Trial Court Properly dismissed these constitutional

claims and the Judgment should be affirmed. Either of these two reasons are

sufficient to affirm the Trial Court’s dismissal of the constitutional claims by Eddie

Anthony Patterson.

                                Conclusion & Prayer

         The Trial Court properly denied Appellants request for counsel. Further,

there are number of reason the dismissal should be affirmed. First, the statute of

limitations had run on any conceivable claim the Appellant could have filed.

Second, essential elements for a defamation claim are missing. Finally, there was

not state action for a constitutional claim. Therefore, this case should be affirmed.

         For the foregoing reasons, the Court should affirm the decision of the Trial

Court.

{03681434.DOC / 2}                     24
                                  Respectfully submitted,

                                  NAMAN, HOWELL, SMITH & LEE, PLLC
                                  400 Austin Avenue, 8th Floor
                                  P. O. Box 1470
                                  Waco, Texas 76703-1470
                                  (254) 755-4100
                                  FAX (254) 754-6331

                                  BY:       /s/ Neal E. Pirkle
                                            Neal E. Pirkle
                                            State Bar No. 00794464
                                            Robert Little
                                            State Bar No. 24050940

                                      ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

                     CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

       The undersigned hereby certifies that he has determined the word count in
the foregoing document to be 4,874 and further certifies that all words in the body
of the brief are 14 pt. type and all words in footnotes are 12 pt. type.

                                            /s/ Neal E. Pirkle
                                            Neal E. Pirkle

{03681434.DOC / 2}                   25
                                Certificate of Service

      I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was sent to the
person(s) named below, at the address shown by placing the same in a properly
addressed envelope, postage pre-paid, and mailing the document by first class mail
(and by other means stated below) on December 17th 2015.

        Mr. Eddie Anthony Patterson
        Inmate T.D.C.J. #01635370
        C.T. Terrell Unit
        1300 FM 655
        Rosharon, Texas 77583

                                             /s/ Neal E. Pirkle
                                             Neal E. Pirkle

{03681434.DOC / 2}                    26
                     No. 06-15-00046-CV
                              In the Court of Appeals
                           For the Sixth Judicial District
                            Sitting at Texarkana, Texas

                       EDDIE ANTHONY PATTERSON,
                                Appellant

                                            v.

               TV CHANNEL 25 BROADCAST STATION AND
                   ITS REPORTER ON MARCH 29, 2010,
                              Appellee

                      Appealed from 170th Judicial District Court
                             McLennan County, Texas

                                   Appendix

        Order on Plaintiff’s Motion for Recruitment of IOLTA Funded or           A
        Pro Bono Counsel and On Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

        Eddie Anthony Patterson v. Beth Toben, et. al, Cause No. W-12-CV-045,    B
        In the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas,
        Waco Division

        Indictment of Eddie Anthony Patterson                                    C

{03681434.DOC / 2}                     27
                                             NO. 2015-905-4

EDDIE ANTHONY PATTERSON                            I
CONFINED AT THE C.T. TERRELL UNIT                  I
INMANTE T.D.C.J. #01635370;                        I
                                                   I
v.                                                 I
                                                   I
T.V. CHANNEL 25 BROADCAST STATION                  I
AND ITS REPORTER ON MARCH 29,                      I
2010: 1909 S. NEW ROAD, WACO, TX                   I
76711                                              I          170m JUDICIAL DISTRICT

       On                        of June, 2015, the Court considered Plaintiff's Motion for

Recruitment of lolta Punded or Pro Bono Counsel (which the Court interprets to be and is

referred to in this Order as "Plaintiff's Motion for Recruitment of Io1ta Funded or Pro Bono

Counsel") and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and after considering said Motions and the filings

in this Court, the Court rules as follows:

       The Court hereby determines that Plaintiff's Motion for Recruitment of 101ta Funded or

Pro Bon Counsel is not meritorious; and therefore, Plaintiff's Motion for Recruitment of lolta

Funded or Pro Bono Counsel is DENIED.

       The Court hereby determines that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is meritorious; and

therefore, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.

       All relief not expressly granted is hereby denied.

       This is a final appealable judgment.

        SIGNEDthis      K         day of June, 2015.               (

                                                 1REH~~
(0334916S.DOCX/)

                                                                                     Appendix A
             Case 6:12-cv-00045-WSS Document 1 Filed 02/27/12                       Page 1 of 9
              .                           .                             .                         FILED
                           IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                        FOR THE \N.E5n;BN        DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                                                                               FEB 2 7 ZOlZ
                                   WAsGo          DIVISION
                                 Form To Be Used By A Prisoner in Filing a Complaint
                                     Under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.c. § 1983

E.t>D:r.E ANTHoNY PAITERSo)J ~D'1ts~,\Ie.lx.113Z-o
Place of Confinement
                                                                   CASE NO:   W12 CA04 5
                                                                                   (Clerk will assign the number)
v.

'e>ETH """toBEN, a.~4 or        neC' ott;uoJ
Defendant's name and address

"T.". c..btl.N.Ne..L!t5 \>(oo..d.c.(l.';,t 510.1io"';
Defendant's name and address

Defendant's name and address
(DO NOT USE "ET AL.")

                                 INSTRUCTIONS - READ CAREFULLY

NOTICE:

Your complaint is subject to dismissal unless it conforms to these instructions and this form.

I. To start an action you must file an original and one copy of your complaint with the court. You should keep a
   copy of the complaint for your own records.

2. Your complaint must be iegibly handwritten in ink. or typewritten. You, the plaintiff, must sign and declare
   under penalty of peIjury that the facts are correct. If you need additional space, DO NOT USE THE
   REVERSE SIDE OR BACK SIDE OF ANY PAGE. ATTACH AN ADDITIONAL BLANK PAGE AND
   WRlTEON IT.

3. You must file a separate complaint for each claim you have unless the various claims are all related to the
   same incident or issue or are all against the same defendant, Rule 18, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Make
   a short and plain statement of your claim, Rule 8, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

4. When these forms are completed, mail the original and one copy to the Clerk of the United States Court for
   the appropriate District of Texas in the Division where one or more named defendants are located, or where
   the incident giving rise to your claim for relief occurred. The list labeled as "VENUE LIST" is posted in your
   unit law library. It is a list of Texas prison units indicating the appropriate District Court, the Division and an
   address of the Divisional Clerks.

ATC 1983 (Rev. 04/06)                         Page I of 5

                        It
                                                                                            Appendix B - 000001
                                                                                                          , ..
             Case 6:12-cv-00045-WSS                  Document 1 Filed 02/2t9-i~F~[Jt~ ~"h;bi~             A

.Ca..e lO, '\N
 (\ t\.\ t,\~ CApa.c,ty. l~ 0<1 ~. ~ew Roo.d. ' '-l<'A.ce. \x. rft, 111
                                                               1

..,WP£-o ,-no "lie. O~
_\)e±e,NdCvJt M3                                 - - - .-----------------------

--M.c..L.~N N A\\.\ (.oU.NI'( fe({)r~s d..,e~Q.('tMeNt 04\\<1. Of           -theA,   otflcio..l ('e<.oraer
 ~H     MClCc-h ;...'l , ~ 10. d-.t6 Nt, 5±h~j,N~o..CJ:)~\u-",'f.L:.!..._J.u."LlJ""'-().L.1_ _ _ _ __
-,-QefWo.wtil4

                                                                                        Appendix B - 000002
               Case 6:12-cv-00045-WSS           Document 1 Filed 02/27/12              Page 3 of 9
FILING FJj:E AND IN FORMA PAUPERIS

I.   In order for your complaint to be filed, it must be accompanied by the filing fee of $350.00.

2. If you do not have the necessary funds to pay the filing fee in full at this time, you may request permission to
   proceed in forma pauperis. In this event you must complete the application to proceed in forma pauperis
   (IFP), setting forth the information to establish your inability to prepay the fees and costs or give security
   therefore. You must also include a six (6) month history of your Inmate Trust Account. You can acquire the
   application to proceed IFP and appropriate Inmate Account Certificate from the law library at your prison
   unit.

3. 28 U.S.c. 1915, as amended by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA), provides, " ... ifa prisoner
   brings a civil action or files and appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to pay the full
   amount of a filing fee." Thus, the Court is required to assess and, when funds exist, collect, the entire filing
   fee or an initial partial filing fee and monthly installments until the entire amount of the filing fee has been
   paid by the prisoner. If you submit the application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court will apply 28
   U.S.c. 1915 and, if appropriate, assess and collect the entire filing fee or an initial partial filing fee, then
   monthly 'installments from your Inmate Account, until the entire $350 filing fee has been paid.

4 .. If you intend to seek in forma pauperis status, then do not send your complaint without an Application to
     Proceed IFP, and the Certificate of Inmate Trust Account. Complete all the essential paperwork before
     submitting it to the Court.

CHANGE OF ADDRESS

         It is your responsibility to inform the Court of any change of address and its effective date. Such notice
should be marked "NOTICE TO THE COURT OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS" and shall not include any
motions(s) for any other relief. Failure to file a NOTICE TO THE COURT OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS may
result in the dismissal of your complaint pursuant to Rule 41 (b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.

I.   PREVIOUS LAWSUITS:

     A. Have you filed any other lawsuits in the state or federal court relating to
        imprisonment?                                          YES         V        NO

     B. If your'answer to "A" is yes, describe each lawsuit in the space below. (If there is more than one lawsuit,
        describe the additional lawsuits on another piece of paper, giving the same information.)

          I.   Approximate date of filing lawsuit:                           NIA
         2.    Parties to previous lawsuit:                                  I' ~, / A
               Plaintiff(s): _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _---I_,..:!.soL_.L_..(.._~_

               Defendant(s):   --------------t~~I-H[A~-
         3.    Court (If federal, name the district; if state, name the county) _ ....N-"-L-fL"-'--_______

         4.    Docket Number: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _                  +-N. . . . ./uA'-'-_
         5. Name of judge to whom case was assigned: _ _ _ _ _ _ _--'"N-"'-J/"-L-A->--______

         6.    Disposition: (Was the case dismissed, appealed, still pending?)

                                                                                      tiA
         7. Approximate date of disposition: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.....N-30-/L·-'-A...!-

ATC 1983 (Rev. 04/06)                         Page 2 of5
                                                                                                        Appendix B - 000003
                  Case 6:12-cv-00045-WSS             Document 1      Filed 02/27/12        Page 4 of 9

     II. PLACE"'OF PRESENT CONFINEMENT: 1,O.(..tr. (U)                     MfM.347B, Uw.tf5vr]lt, 7'1,71320
     III. EXHAUSTION OF GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES:
         Have you exhausted both steps of the grievance procedure in this institution?               YES     NI A      NO
         Attach a copy of the Step 2 grievance with the response supplied by the prison system.

     IV. PARTIES TO THE SUIT:

         A. Name of address of plaintiff:       EDOIE t\ti~\J-ow. 'f Pf\\1tR~ON ~ O\~~5~\ 0
               ·T.D~C.:r.(~)      l(P4 fM3'tJS, HlL!\li$v'lle                   J~' 1132..0

         B. Full name of each defendant, his official position, his place of employment, and his full mailing address.

              Defendant #1:    2>~J\4 -roBEtJ A\1onu:y
                                                 I                he S\o.te. 0\ \i;>c..s
                                                                                       W NO. Aoo«3-J.9So
               Md,e.NNQN      G,tLJ\l+y \)is1rid iA\--\o\bl.e.y cfti<_e.. g (q 1\\. lo-fh. st. Rfv\.~o IAI~Cl', TK.767o I
              Briefly describe the act(s) or omission(s) of this defendant, which you claimed harmed you.
               lk>ON \n.\.oCMMM.tUi\c4..ho\~
              Defendant #3: G,u..r-t reporter ON M'1.~HOy.l~f\1j {ols.e \t-l1o~\Oh\,_,lo.-hd~~c:ed '"\0 =the
.Me.cU~),~~\~,c. (,L~rd.:~_},_g-~;(t.~~ __s'~~i~.,_~, ~~o~ 0:\ re(.OMMed.o.,"\\ort ot
 ~e ).lo. __ Joe ~ ~,H~t_~Ll~~h~_1(t~ &~U.('T ()\ Mc.le.NNO..t./ Uu..('.l-q, '"ij
 0'" M()..(=c.~ ~\ d.-o\O, Wh;Ch \0'1 doi.N.3 So cL\d\tJ+,-tt
 M'( ("~\'\'~Oi" ~4___ffi~ __'Q~~~ss '0,( "'-.\\lOV\llNg a..Nd.. or \t\\\w~\O\-lo..\\~ d.~~l\le
                        I

 Me of M~ CoNs1\kha\tOi M:\-iot'l -to h\s/ber eMp\o'{e.\, 't4~
j~e..u pu11luJIV bfoClJ.co..steJ. -\'n~ '0'( wJ1¥-ot \~~~IS..i.nrl 'cl~Ch b", d.O\~
 ~o     d-Ad.   CaJ-l.t;?-e \-)().,('M   -To ~e, ?lcUV\l-htt, M~ ("'e~v..\-dt\~, 4re.. of fe,(OM.M~1l~
 be.-{ore ('de.a.s~~ O-Mtl <,C' fe.(.Orcll~}Q_1?u.b\;0.~rJs,Io'lJ!o-\ ~lN~~dJcl
 ~('\ \Ie M.e.)?l ~",~R of M'( c.oN.Sht~\10NcJ C4.\Clor ~-\nkt~') ('\3~\"s \~ 1~e.,f'o..~
 iN. b\s ther \Nd.\\(·,dua..l o...od. 0("' c-fficiol. ~C:lr'l.(\.I.(\d.e.(" ~\()r ot si~t~ \4.W)

                                                                                           Appendix B - 000005
               Case 6:12-cv-0004S-WSS              Document 1 Filed 02/27/12 Page 6 of 9
V. STATEMENT OF CLAIM:

    State here in a short and plain statement the facts of your case, that is, what happened, where did it happen,
    when did it happen, and who was involved. Describe how each defendant is involved. You need not give any
    legal argument or cite any cases of statutes. If you intent to allege a number of related claims, number and set
    forth each claim in a separate paragraph. Attach extra pages if necessary, but remember that the complaint
    must be stated briefly and concisely. IF YOU VIOLATE THIS RULE, THE COURT MAY STRIKE YOUR
    COMPLAINT.
    defeooo.l'·d~.i ~t.1s w·\u.. shOv.l ~hf,\CBdbTobe.tJ) U aSter 5\%",)1& e cA.\\ett,~\)O!is -to be fC\Med 10 -the
     "T·v" MecMQ., o..t-1~s r~Oe.\JeJ. -\0 b~ \de"·lseA. v-i '"",0111 <.hedd N~ \\-~ \~U.{/ber
      \~~..,~J..U(Ll Md..Or ctbd<1\.\ Yl~o..c.a't, 1.. cUSo be1i~\le "The \.", S\-J-\Otl Sholt!cl
     b~ U~\t.. ~.,.. "oT <.-~eJt..·\I\)8 \ N,.(ar~~K,,, fe.ue,,~ -\-rOM. \\is \e.\?O~\ec bt~ofe ?u.b\;ca.lLy
                                                                                                        I

                                                                           See..   D e+eI\lJ.u:l-¥~L_..L~~Cl~_'_~\~'~_H:I\)._. ~JIf!:-r~j.N.kr~~-b:D.b\ . j\~6.~e,(t );)l·-b,p~¥·­
 Cpt.u·+_(e~orT~.c,,:t{)   J.>-e. .:tf'v.,£.   o..«~ <..otr~~\l ~..l<.:.e No.LooCZ-tl94--GI
 be,t,r-e.. r-eJeo.:>;"'r O-Nd 0(' re~.r.d.ltia-_~Y~}.\c.._K~~ __Q.cl_.. M~t,... J.-l.
J...o \0. iN th€lr \ndi \( ;dM~__~_!l£.. _9..£{-ig_~_~~d:t~~~~:~ ?\~~\-\«~.? _
_\h:\\tN-eSS spoke 'N'rth \N.-¥~__a.-\_1~~ M~NN(ul U)\ANt~ ~eLords 'De.~1-
 M-e«t) (M-.l (!)~£.ciJJ.LCo~tt_~.l~t¥-tf.-u... AN, HONY HrrrER.50N
                     (Date)                                                             (printed Name)

                                                                         &J;..~~
                                                                           (SIgnature fPlamtlff)

    PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATIONS

         1. I declare under penalty of perjury all facts presented in this complaint and attachment thereto are true and
            correct.

        2.   I understand if I am released or transferred, it is my responsibility to keep the Court infonned of my
             current mailing address and failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this lawsuit.

        3. I understand that I must exhaust all available administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit.

        4.   I understand I am prohibited from bringing an in forma pauperis lawsuit if I have brought three or more
             civil actions in a Court of the United States while incarcerated or detained in any facility, which lawsuits·
             are dismissed on the ground they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief
             may be granted, unless I am under imminent danger or serious physical injury.

        5. I understand even if I am allowed to proceed without prepayment of costs, I am responsible for the entire
           $350 filing fee and costs assess by the Court, which shall be deducted in accordance with the law from the
           inmate account by my custodian until the filing fee is paid.

    Signed this         4. c2. ...ci day of_---=-hl_·---=-.;('-w_(L('_4"f_ _, 20    \ ~
                       (Day)                           (Month)                     (Year)

                                                                         EDDIE       ANTHoN" Vf\Trt:R.~M
                                                                                        (Printed Name)

                                                                         ~~~~
                                                                          (Signature o~ Plaintiff)

    WARNING: The Plaintiff is hereby advised any false or deliberately misleading information provided in
    response to the following questions will result in the imposition of sanctions. The sanctions the Court may
    impose include, but are not limbed to monetary sanctions and/or the dismissal of this action with prejudice.

                                                  Page 5 of5

-
    ATe 1983 (Rev. 04/06)
                                                                                               Appendix B - 000008
                                                                                                                                 :~ '··l;~;::~·.v·~~~~:1r:'"~~;f

                                                                                                                                                          Appendix B - 000009
                                                                                                                                                                        ;-

i   Y
I __ 9'>
    r-"";";--   <

    ,'PRIORITY'
        M
    'TiJtES POSTIJL SERVICE
        ---aN
        u
         (l)

        IT
        M

     E~velope                       From:JExpedlfeur:
    :on§                              ISeld,e- ?~&On :1l ~WDS5ID
         (,)
         o
        o                                    ~~           0"-,+
    L FWJTRICTIONS APPLY:
        (f)
                                         tiU., l/ ,:::m. a'f1 f{ f4L.
    ar&J;Pqulred. G.onsult the
    III ~uaI (IMM) at pe.usps.gov
                                             ~~lLiLlt., T".I.~2()
    lSoqate (or details.                ,/
        o                                               To:/Destinataire:
        a
        o
         :>
         (,)
                                                         u ~ ~ . ? "E,~'-of.- c.&uz::T
                                                           LUt.~4u-n         1),&htz..td-
          I
        N
        M
        <.0
         (l)
                                                          -Dt+ic,e o(l t>,~~
         (f)
         cO                                                ~ FY'ankJjn 4ve,. i«,m O.uJI -rx. 1--iL,          D   J

                                    L                   Country of Destination:iPays de destlnstlon:
                                                                                                                    ~

          _~        Please
                                                                                                       11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
                 Case 6:12-cv-00045-WSS Document 23 Filed 10/31/13 Page 1 of 6

                        U-Ml TED 5TA.ltS 1) t"'::>1R\ (,1 Cnu~\"t
                          W Es~1EZN 'DLSTRK,T Q F '-rEXi\.S
                                     WA.c.o   b\\jl~\DN                             FILED
                                                                                   OCT 3 1 2013
EDDIE ANTHoJJV 'l>A~t4                                                    CLERK~U.S
                                                                         WESTERN
                                                                                  ~". 'C
                                                                                    I E '
                                                                         BY             •
T.u.c..:J. ~O. D\~3S31Dl                                                      ,             - UT    CLERK
                      'YLo.1NH1+ j

\15.

~mToe£M\E.T (\L.>
             "DeteN J£Ults .
                                AMWDEt) (nMVLN NT

~O"'" LoMf..S YlhNilfF         E.bmLA.N-n\oN'1 rtmfR::{)cl \ 5Lll~J(\I\,(rn~~ '~f\MtNtfD
CoM~\J1S ~NS.T \)EfENDMTS \M ~Bo\l~ CJVtL No. W-Q-C.\(-04S , ~\
WILl. A(;,E 4\l) of \-\\S ~~filINM...
Lo4V\~~T FlLfD            M~ \\1.0\2- m~\ VJI LL SHov.t               h\(. XS \b EN,y,\£..
 l-ttM.   \0 REQuE5~ ~EUtF_

t\iTAU\ED 'D::iuMtNlt; F~ ~ 1)Er&-\~ W\\.l.. 'S\-\O\N ~~ \\\C\«.. ~\D~S
1)\D c.MSlS ~ TO \>~N\\ff, ~'( t.\1\\tR ONE:.. oR. N.L U'S1"t..O \J \O~'Qf\.\S
 BE.l..(Mh ~CA1N v.lE. 'PeA'< feR. RWEF ~A\£i) ON PAl::E..4-GI\) of ORlG,(N~~M~l'n.
l)EffND~1S b\D, \/loLA:-TE:.. l'L~NIIA="'S \ \4-1l-l- f'.\M~\DM.&t-r \ 'B,~ b~Pw2.1 vu\lG
 \-lIM of )..\lS CbtJST'IU\\ON~ MD o~ ST~\\)"""\bR.~ R1 \N G:,~£R~~'Y
 ~NO\N'NbLV AND lNlfM\\~NN..L:f RE.lt-A.stNG fAti::f- A.U...ff,~TlOf-l<; Wo~y\\~T ~
  "PUlNll 'F~ Tl\J\T WILt.. sHoWL..~PM\ l.1,&f:,L ~DDR S\.MS>u" •.                -rn-ttR   'lJ
  l:.MDtVH:1.IAL MD OR DFFluAL ~/(Wiv... \/JthLU- ~'< lJO\f\lG:. ~OJD1D CIM1~f:. M&M.

  rLMSf. Sf:E. ATTAc.H fD 5TATEMEN'T of ClAt IV\':J foR tAtM uEff.MbJ\a\\T.
  R~"PfLTfUiL,( SUBM\TIED ON 'l\\-\S .,281H bl\"'{ ~ F . O("'To BE:.R.
   2..0 13~ BY 'Pu\IJ~T'ff, fDlJI.f:, ~N'( 1'M1!:RN .
                                                  5 \(0 r.lA:\\INO:   &l%o '~l~
                                                           Tl>(;j"~ tD ,<0 3S 31 ()                     ".

                                                                                  Appendix B - 000010
               Case 6:12-cv-0'A045-WSS Document 23 Filed 10/31113 Page 4 of 6
                       _ HMENDED (jjM                  PL~tNT
                                                              UV rL- NO, \N- 11 - ty-04£"

Dl=F£J\\Dt\N1 ~ 3. M~nlM Le~n ~T RtrOK~' lAD \"-l ft\LT ~,rRJ\lE.
  ThE. PLA(NTI f=F" of" ONE.. ~R MOR.E:.. f)f' \-\6 u:)\iSn\\)\\O(\\~ R\<:'\-\TS ~..m
 OC(. ~\~ STf\Tu"1of..Y K'bt-lrS, ~~u~UX '-ruE... \4\~ ~~DN\fN\ \\"\.\ G,~€~.~\>ot-l
J:t-\ f~~-nl)N ~() BEUt-f fJ\.L-rS W,LL 5\-\-0\1'-\ 'D€fEN~T ~Lt\) 'To (o~'t1e(V\~
RBI'f.VJ~ t\NO (llZ ""~ (nl2J<.fcnDNs Df T\l£ \\"fn~~'\o(\\ \\f./.b\-tt. ~
REU€v£.O      ~M Dt.fif\\\)~1 ~l-- ?:>tT~ 'Th~8\L ST~1ES (£)u~.sa.~ .~~                        LN   t\\S(
~fLI.. \ND '''l\)UM- CJ>-s.{>~(:.lT'Y A~ vJEU..   A..s m~~ offl~L ~IY b\~                  (j;ySf--
HH..M   -r0  P~N"\fY~ K8}t,.A-r~-n~tJ, BU5'rutS~, ~\\.,~ \N \\~1 (o(~~\l"{
                                                                  j

B'( DEFAf'\'\A-"nON: LlP)t.L: ~tJ.D OR S~\)~- ~'( NQT cCNflRrwcNG rr's LNfoRM-
~1\0t.J\ '~ l)'{ Rtl.-£~\Nb -mE:.- f~\Sf:., Dfft.\MI:\-m~,< IN ~~-nO'"
TtJ '"~ MLl£t\)N~ (§)u\,>\l"~ RfCo~'":> \)tV~erMtl-\T WlU-S\.\oW ?UMN1\fts
R\C,HTS wftL Ylo~l"io            I   ~i\ 'P~\N\\fF SMruU)   Bt.   G~T£D          VJ~llA
                                                                                R£UEf
 HE. SEEKS ~S STAlED \\"\ De..\~\N{.\L Lt>N\~\.A\«r. 'Vf\b~           4lvn.
                                                                    'ft\GTS W,Ll
 ~lS() S\-\o\A ~DMT A.L18) uNDE«. Go~oR. of STl\""Tt ~, uPON r~foRN\­
 (\110 N ~\) ~ EF \.)tfE~~NT \ZNOWI(\)C.,LY RtLfASEo l\tE- ~ 'Df-fAM~-ro~i
~-r~~f.~\ T~ \1\-E.- ML\"~t'J ~ (~ REcocDS \)f,'YAQ.,Mf..Nl" \~ ~t..
Th&Uc..\,Y RElofU)8)~ A5 -m£. :fU.4JKAD.\... (n(~ff:.SS\orl of LA1JSE          ""0,
                                                                           1..oo, ~ rLA\rt1\fF \cs El\\l\\\.U.) "TO ~tUt.f-

                                                                         Appendix B - 000011
                 Case 6:12-cv-00~~.-X"!SS Docume~ 23 Filed 10/31/13       Page 5 of 6
                                8n'lENDf-D LbMPLAINT
STt\l"EMB\\i {)f C1.A\M:                                          (j\}IL No, W-\L-()J-D45

t>EftND~l-\T ~4-) M(l£f'lNJ\N ~OUN.TI RECoR"bS DEPARTMfNT} RfloRDtR
 b\o \N fAcT Vn.,Ct\-TE. 'PlAtr-ll\FPs . CnNST\iUl"lOf'lAL kND 0«" S-rA,uttY
 ~\<=>I-\TS \ ESP~~LL,( n\-£ \4-m M\tNDM.~'T\ v.U-Hot DlD CAUSE. \-\ARM..- \0
'F\J\1}..\T\ Ws. RtPU1A:IlDt L BUS\Hf:SS, ~\\..'< ,~\ T\-\l\1 LoMMU.NlTY \ w ~I (j~
                                I

 fr\<..~   \N, LL S\-\O\J...' \)Eft\M~-nO'-{) U £:f.L I M D O~ SLAAt>tRlb PLA\ "'Tl ff..
 \UlON \ ~ fQ~-nnN AN b           ~£L\Ef f1\as VJ L\.L 5\-\tW 1/£:.f6\\DMT fM.LtD
 '\0 ~~\M\E- HIS/\-\£R 5~~W UU1\Es                               tsy      ~\UT (oNFlmtl'l ~
'"Dt:F~~11QK'( :S'TA.-r£MEt\IT R~E.. 'TD \"T'S ~£({)RD' I:fi1\e..'MEJ..\T tlll\;\ N \ \ f f ~ {-ON<3\, '\ \.rn t)('l i\L R\~ ~ It--t G~ tt lU.- J W~ c.»
 \-tt s \411-+   ~ {)N'\tf'lT Btli'\ 6 -mE- G:j?EI\-,t5c. -rH~~ 1« is D{:ffi\l ~T D\D
 PLT UN\)Ef(. LoLOI<,. OF ~TI\i£, LAv-h IN \tERIl·hS\w\J\\,I\D\lA-L CJW~c.rT'( I\S
 WEtL ~S1t\E1r<. Qffi(jt\LCAP~lY \ W\·HCJ-\- E4\\T\TLE..-S ?~\Nl1n::- To W(S
 REGUfSTED Ra\Er IN OR\(Q'Nt\L~VlA\NT rll8\lkcoW\N6 T() VAR(2M\N~ lNfDM\v\-110N \0 EE~E, AND Cn~T\ ~M
   ANY PtND ~LL scu~s ~\~ \Nfo(Z.M~lOC\\ \0 ~E.. M~S ~lE.
\11t<.DUC::,H YU&UL RELo R.~Sl BY ,,'aT f:x)(NCo So DID CAU~ ~-ro t>lAtt'ATIff
  ~'( ~&.oW{t'\G ·lM:-5-rA1E,M~1:~?\.A\N1\fF"bQ:o\)£' l\-\£. \JI'L\fY\l\ To ~ S~OO
  ~ v..\~U£.- ~E. -rB-£.N \G\J~'KI\-VtJ) I1-\£-V\CHM) \.1NQ~Ql€:-, If K€.L~{ti)E1l
   1..\A-o CDNF"W..MW 11\\'Fo(UW~:::tlON F\~T \T vJo\llt) ,,-\tty, l-\AvE., tuBUJt..LY Kf(ot<..i)El).,
  \S\kT ON oil ABouT J\Y~L S-ffi ZO)O.! Rt:wKD3 "'-\Eli:... U:>~ U.P{)~
  MY un/NEsS (1)f'lfQof\llllJC; l1tE. M(L\j\lN~ (ru\\t1¥ j2.ff0(U)~ WMrM&JT
   AND ~'" ~TlNCo \WE., \)£ff\M~--ro~"( ~t- tNfoRN\~\\QN. W'~L HJ
   ~T Sl\{)v.\ 1)~D~TS LlA£\.tTYAftJD G\L~L-T By l1tE.coiRf:CT'O~$
   MME. IN Ttl-Ent. DFv\uAt-CMAstcT'( ,~foR.E ~~l1rr \s. ENTI1tE.D
   \f) REUEF Fo(L bEP0\'frl\lt;, PWN\\ff of H\~ \4-1t+ AM~bMENT ~o
    DTM.iL C£)N~\l-r\Xl\O Nt\\.... M i) S-r~-ru.iGlt'Y R \GHTI.. tKOM ~~~ No.
   ZocA 11<84<.-\ ~ DArE!) AND g~ M~c\-\ z..q) ZolD J

                                                                               Appendix B - 000012
Case 6:12-cv-00045-WSS Document 23 Filed 10/31/13 Page 6 of 6

                      (

                      L

                          ',.
                          -":

                                                                                               ·
                                                                                               ,
                                                                                               •
                                                                                               i
                                                                                              i

                                                                                 ~:
                                                                                 .-.

                                                                   t~~           ~
                                                                                 ~'!
                                                                                               j
                                                                   r"!r>-"':'\   :~:           I
                                                                   ~,
                                                                   ,      ,      Ilrii"
                                                                                 ;':I.~'
                                                                                               j
                                                                                              'j
                                                                   ......'       Q  ••'!',

                                                                                 ~~~
                                                                  !j             ,j:
                                                                                 ;..;..;.,.
                                                                                              .,
                                                                   i-~:'

                          -                                        ~i

                                                                   'of";
                                                                                 C:
                                                                                 ~.
                                                                                 ~:

                                                                   t:            It""':!

                          -                                        ".:;')        t~:

                                                                                              ,1
                                                                                               I.
                                                                                               j
                                                                                               ·
                                                                                              ;)
                                                                                               j
                                                                                              '!
                                                                                              !j
                                       ---- ------                                            {
                                                                                               1

                                                       ._   ..   _-..                         (

                                                        Appendix B - 000013
           Case 6:12-cv-00045-WSS        Document 26 Filed 07/14114   Page 1 of 2

               lW\-rED STJ\TES b\SmCT CouRT
                 W~TER~b\S\R\GT e.-t'\-\ONe.f \N\~"e..S -Tb W\~O\~W
'h\~ 4-2.U.S.C., \9\e.. ~lliT -to b\swss -fu\s C\.C-t\D\'\l)
 w\l~~ ~~ yd-\\-\O~~ U1.N ,+\le ~\S clcUNv \",-, fu~
 \>roper       cous+-) \bl\fuouJ-              ?C~j~~,.

  11~4~t~'t .~ub~\kl 9~~'\~3~~f ~uL~
          . b\{ ~hhot-1li",~ ~ _:~\(,~5~\O.
                                                ft)\)l£ ~NlOON"< Th~~
                                                \,\).w. & \\..0353,0
                                                 \300 FAA \o5S       ,
                                                RoSH~RoN\\X '11S~3
                                                                           Appendix B - 000014
Case 6:12-cv-00045-WSS Document 26 Filed 07114/1Ll Page 2 of 2
                      co.
                                                                       -

                                                        Appendix B - 000015
          Case 6:12-cv-00045-WSS        Document 27     Filed 07116/14 Page 1 of 1

                      IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                      FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

                                     WACO DIVISION

EDDIE ANTHONY PATTERSON,                       §
     Plaintiff,                                §
                                               §
v.                                             §    CIVIL ACTION NO. W-12-CV-045
                                               §
BETH TOBEN, et al.,                            §
     Defendants.                               §

                                         ORDER

        This case was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for the Western

District of Texas, Waco Division, for findings and recommendations, pursuantt028 U.S.C.

§ 636(b). The Court received the Magistrate Judge's report, which was filed on June 19,

2014.    In lieu of objections, Plaintiff has filed a motion to dismiss this case without

prejudice. Having reviewed the Plaintiffs motion and the file in this case, the Court is

persuaded the motion is meritorious and should be granted. Accordingly, it is

        ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiffs complaint

is DISMISSED without prejudice. It is further

        ORDERED that any motions not previously ruled upon by this Court or the

Magistrate Judge are DENIED.

        SIGNED this    I/;.. . day of July, 2014.

                                                    WALTER S. SMITH, JR.           I

                                                    United States District Judge

                                                                            Appendix B - 000016
CMIECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txwd                                                    Page 1 of5

                                                                                            CLOSED

                               U.S. District Court [LIVE]
                             Western District of Texas (Waco)
                      CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:12-cv-00045-WSS

Patterson v. Toben et al                                  Date Filed: 02/27/2012
Assigned to: Judge Walter S. Smith                        Date Terminated: 0711612014
Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights                      Jury Demand: None
                                                          Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil
                                                          Rights
                                                          Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
Eddie Anthony Patterson                     represented by Eddie Anthony Patterson
                                                           #1635370
                                                           1300 FM 655
                                                           4Boot-009
                                                           Rosharon, TX 77583
                                                           PROSE

V.
Defendant
Beth Toben
In her Individual and or Official
Capacity
Defendant
Reporter for T.V Channel 25
In his/her Individual and or Official
Capacity
Defendant
Court Reporter Employed by
McLennan County of Texas
In his/her Individual and or Official
Capacity
Defendant
McLennan County Records
Department and their Recorder
In their Indiidual and or Official
Capacity

IDate Filed       #   IDocket Text

                                                                             Appendix B - 000017
https:llecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt.pl?97178838622415-L_I_0-1                    11/24/2015
CMIECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txwd                                                           Page 2 of5

 02/27/2012      1    COMPLAINT, filed by Eddie Anthony Patterson.(tb,) (Entered: 02/28/2012)
 02/27/2012      2    MOTION to Proceed in forma pauperis by Eddie Anthony Patterson. (tb,)
                      (Entered: 02/28/2012)
 02/27/2012      3    MOTION for Appointment of Counsel by Eddie Anthony Patterson. (tb,)
                      (Entered: 02/28/2012)
 02/27/2012      ~    MOTION for an Order of Notice and Service by Eddie Anthony Patterson.
                      (tb, ) (Entered: 02/28/2012)
 02/27/2012      5    MOTION for Production of Documents by Eddie Anthony Patterson. (tb, )
                      (Entered: 02/28/2012)
 02/28/2012      .6 Letter to Eddie Anthony Patterson advising of case number, filing instructions
                      and other general information. (tb, ) (Entered: 02/28/2012)
 03/0112012      1    ORDER DENYING J Motion to Appoint Counsel; DENYING 1. Motion for
                      An Order of Notice and Service; DENYING .i Motion to Produce. Signed by
                      Judge Walter S. Smith. (ad, ) (Entered: 03/0112012)
 03/01/2012      ~    ORDER Directing Monthly Payments be made from Prison Account of Eddie
                      Anthony Patterson, TDCJ #1635370. ORDER REFERRING CASE to
                      Magistrate Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. ORDERED that plaintiff shall pay an
                      initial partial filing fe of$2.41 within 30 days of the entry date of this Order.
                      Signed by Judge Walter S. Smith. (ad,) (Entered: 03/0112012)
 03/02/2012           Copy of 1 Order and .8. Order Directing Prisoner Payments mailed to Eddie
                      Anthony Patterson. (ad, ) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
 04/10/2012      .2   Filing fee received in the amount of$2.41, receipt number 600008793. (ad,)
                      (Entered: 0411112012)
 0411212012     10 NOTICE of Default by Eddie Anthony Patterson. (ad,) (Entered: 04/13/2012)
 04/25/2012     11    MOTION for Service of Process by United States Marshal Service by Eddie
                      Anthony Patterson. Motions referred to Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. (ad, )
                      (Entered: 04/26/2012)
 06/20/2012     11. SECOND Request for Service of Process by Eddie Anthony Patterson. Motions
                      referred to Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. (mc5, ) (Entered: 06/2112012)
 07112/2012     .u    Petition for Writ of Mandamus, filed by Eddie Anthony Patterson.(tb, )
                      (Entered: 07113/2012)

 09/27/2012           Text Order DENYING 11 Motion entered by Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. Plaintiff
                      requests that the Court order service upon the defendants. However, because the
                      Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. 1915 requires the Court to
                      first review the merits of his claims. Such review is ongoing, and service is
                      inappropriate at this time. The Court will revisit this issue as warranted by
                      procedural developments in this action. Ghg) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
 09/27/2012           Text Order DENYING 11. Motion entered by Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. Plaintiff
                      requests that the Court order service upon the defendants. However, because the
                      Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. 1915 requires the Court to

                                                                                    Appendix B - 000018
https:llecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt.pl?97178838622415-L_l_0-1                           11124/2015
CMIECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txwd                                                         Page 3 of5

                      first review the merits of his claims. Such review is ongoing, and service is
                      inappropriate at this time. The Court will revisit this issue as warranted by
                      procedural developments in this action.(jhg) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
 03/28/2013      14   MOTION for Service of Process by Eddie Anthony Patterson. Motions referred
                      to Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. (tb) (Entered: 03/28/2013)
 07/29/2013      15   NOTICE of Change of Address by Eddie Anthony Patterson (tb) (Entered:
                      07/30/2013)
 09103/2013      l§   MOTION for Service of Process by Eddie Anthony Patterson. Motions referred
                      to Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. (tb) (Entered: 09104/2013)
 09109/2013      17   REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Complaint filed by Eddie
                      Anthony Patterson. Signed by Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. (tb) (Entered:
                      09/10/2013)
 09109/2013           CASE NO LONGER REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. (tb)
                      (Entered: 09/10/2013)
 0911112013      .lli Certified mail acknowledgment receipt for magistrate report and
                      recommendations re 11 Report and Recommendations as to Eddie Anthony
                      Patterson. (tb) (Entered: 09/1112013)
 09/20/2013      19   MOTION to Alter or Amend Judgment by Eddie Anthony Patterson. (tb)
                      (Entered: 09/20/2013)
 09/24/2013      20   ORDER REJECTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 11 Report
                      and Recommendations. ODERED that the Magistrate Judge's findings and
                      recommendation are NOT ADOPTED. ORDERED that the case is hereby re-
                      assigned to United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey C. Manske for further
                      proceedings, including disposition of non-dispositive motions and findings and
                      recommendations regarding dispositive motions. Signed by Judge Walter S.
                      Smith. (mc5) (Entered: 09/24/2013)
 09/24/2013           CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. (mc5) (Entered:
                      09/24/2013)
 1010712013     .f.l MOTION to Produce Documents by Eddie Anthony Patterson. Motions
                      referred to Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. (tb) (Entered: 10108/2013)
 10108/2013           Text Order DENYING 21 Motion to Produce entered by Judge Jeffrey C.
                      Manske. Came for consideration Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery. In his
                      Motion, Plaintiff has served a discovery request upon the Court and seeks
                      production of a variety of documents and video footage. After careful review of
                      the Motion, the Court finds that the manner in which Plaintiffs discovery
                      request is made is not contemplated under the rules of civil procedure. As such,
                      Plaintiffs Motion is not properly before the Court, and it is hereby denied. Cab)
                      (Entered: 10108/2013)
 10108/2013           Text Order GRANTING 1.2 Motion to Amend Judgment entered by Judge
                      Jeffrey C. Manske. Came for consideration Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or
                      Amend Judgment, which the Court construes as a Motion to Amend Complaint.
                      To the extent the Plaintiff is seeking leave to amend his Complaint, that motion

                                                                                  Appendix B - 000019
https:llecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binlDktRpt.pl?9717883 8622415-L_l_0-1                         11/24/2015
CMIECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txwd                                                                    Page 4 of5

                          is granted. To the extent Plaintiff is requesting reconsideration of his Motion to
                          Appoint Counsel, his request is denied.{ab) (Entered: 10/08/2013)
 10108/2013               Text Order DENYING 1.1 Motion entered by Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. Plaintiff
                          requests that the Court order service upon the defendants. The Court granted
                          Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Complaint, but Plaintiff has not yet filed an
                          amended complaint. As such, service on the defendants is premature at this
                          time, and Plaintiffs Motion for Service of Process is denied.{ab) (Entered:
                          10108/2013)
 10108/2013               Text Order DENYING l2. Motion entered by Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. Plaintiff
                          requests that the Court order service upon the Defendants. The Court granted
                          Plaintiffs Motion to Amend Complaint, but Plaintiff has not yet filed an
                          amended complaint. As such, service on the Defendants is premature at this
                          time, and Plaintiffs Motion for Service of Process is denied.{ab) (Entered:
                          10108/2013)

 10108/2013      22       ORDER re l.2. MOTION to Amend Judgment filed by Eddie Anthony
                          Patterson. Construing this Motion as a Motion to Amend Complaint, this Court
                          granted the Plaintiffs Motion in a text order Oct. 8,2013. It is ORDERED that
                          Plaintiff has until Nov. 8,2013 to file his Amended Complaint. Signed by
                          Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. (tb) (Entered: 10/09/2013)
 10/3112013      23       AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants amending 1 Complaint.,
                          filed by Eddie Anthony Patterson.{tb) (Entered: 10/3112013)
 06119/2014      24       REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS reI Complaint filed by Eddie
                          Anthony Patterson, CASE NO LONGER REFERRED to Magistrate Judge
                          Jeffrey C. Manske. Signed by Judge Jeffrey C. Manske. (mc5) (Entered:
                          06/23/2014)
 07/02/2014      25       Certified mail acknowledgment receipt for magistrate report and
                          recommendations re 24 Report and Recommendations, Case No Longer
                          Referred to Magistrate Judge as to Eddie Anthony Patterson. (tb) (Entered:
                          07/02/2014)

 07/14/2014      26       MOTION to Dismiss by Eddie Anthony Patterson. (mc5) (Entered: 07/14/2014)
 0711612014      27       ORDER GRANTING 26 Motion to Dismiss. ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion
                          to Dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED without
                          prejudice. ORDERED that any motions not previously ruled upon by this Court
                          or the Magistrate Judge are DENIEd. Signed by Judge Walter S. Smith. (mc5)
                          (Entered: 07116/2014)

                      I                   PACER Service Center
                      I                      Transaction    Recei~t

                      I                        11/24/20]5 ]4:14:45
                      IPACER
                      ,Logm:
                                      Ina0001 :2604925:0 IClient Code:   1114643-44

                      1Description:   IIDocket Report   IIsearCh         116: 12-cv-00045-

                                                                                             Appendix B - 000020
https:llecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binlDktRpt.pl?9717883 8622415-L_l_0-1                                    11124/2015
CMIECF LIVE - U. S. District Court:txwd                                                              Page 5 of5

                    I              I                 IICriteria:     I\wss
                                                                      ~===~
                    !Billable Pages:!L.../3_ _ _ _--l!L-!C_os_t:_ _---J! !O._30
                                                                         ..... _ _ _---J1

                                                                                       Appendix B - 000021
https:llecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binlDktRpt.pl?9717883 8622415-L_1_0-1                              11/24/2015
THE STATE OF TEXAS
VS.
EDDIE ANTHONY PATTERSON

                                          PRIMARY OFFENSE
                                     AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING
                                      §20.04, Texas Penal Code
                                       I st Degree Felony
Bond $
em #: 41401
                                                                                             Booking # 746689

In The 19th District Court
McLennan County, Texas
                               §
                               §         2009-   11 R4          -cJ-       §
                                                                           §
                                                                                  John Segrest, District Attorney
                                                                                         Beth Toben, Assistant

                IN THE NAME AND BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

THE GRAND JURY, for the County of McLennan, State of Texas, duly selected, empaneled, sworn,

charged, and organized as such at the September Term, A.D., 2009, of the 19th Judicial District Court for

said County, upon their oaths present in and to said Court at said term that                    EDDIE ANTHONY

PATTERSON, hereinafter styled Defendant, heretofore on or about the 24th day of June, A.D. 2009, and

before the presentment of this indictment, in the County and State aforesaid, did then and there intentionally

or knowingly, with the intent to inflict bodily injury on Valerie Hill Ray or violate or abuse sexually Valerie

Hill Ray or terrorizeValerie Hill Ray, intentionally or knowingly abduct Valerie Hill Ray by restricting the

movements of said Valerie Hill Ray without her consent so as to interfere substantially with her liberty, by

moving h~r from one place to another or confining her, with the intent to prevent her liberation, by secreting

or holding her in a place where she was not likely to be found .

. . . . AGAINST THE PEACE AND DIGNITY OF THE STATE.

                                                                                       "'.

                                                    (\~\\'il~i~\n\j~~\~~'~~\I,mI'~~~   ./
                                                                                                     Indictment - Page I

                                                     '---   .

                                                                                                                Appendix C
r

    The State of Texas
    County of Mclennan
    I, Jon R. Gimble. Clerk of the District Court of McLennan County
    Texas do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct
    copy of the Oligin(:ll as the same appears on file in the Dis1ri~
    Court, McLennan Cou~. Texas wltnes~~lhand and seat of
    office t~ / [ tL                 day of-<-~-==-,,,,,,,,,,-_
    A.D., - - b
     a2b~
    J1n~If'\.',~
    Mc,n
    By
                 ble     ,as

                       Deputy

                                                                        Appendix C