Court Opinion

ID: 9758846
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:52:31.920104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:54.163227
License: Public Domain

BURGESS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. As the majority notes, this is not the first time we have visited the issue of a section 14.004 dismissal. In Thomas v. Bush, 23 S.W.3d 215, 218 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 2000, pet. denied), we acknowledged the purpose of section 14.004 is to curb the constant, often duplicative, inmate litigation, by requiring the inmate to notify the trial court of previous litigation and the outcome. Id. (citing Bell v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice-Inst. Div., 962 S.W.2d 156, 158 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet. denied)). In Bell, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals stated
The purpose of sections 14.003 and 14.004 is obvious: the Texas Legislature recognized the problem of constant, often duplicative, inmate litigation in this state, and sought to reduce it by requiring the inmate to notify the trial court of previous litigation and the outcome. In this way, the trial court could determine, based on previous filings, if the suit was *566frivolous because the inmate had already filed a similar claim.
Bell, 962 S.W.2d at 158.
The Bell court also noted:
While Bell did list four previous filings, he did not state the operative facts for which relief was sought in those suits, nor did he identify each party to the suits. See id. at § 14.004(a)(2)(A) & (C).
Without that information, the trial court was unable to consider whether Bell’s current claim is substantially similar to a previous claim. See id. at § 14.003(b)(4).
Id., 962 S.W.2d at 158. Clearly the Bell court required the trial judge to look at all aspects of the section 14.004 affidavit rather than focus narrowly on the “operative facts” statement.
The majority claims “The trial court had no way of determining from his statement of ‘operative facts’ whether the prior ‘due process’ suits were duplicative of this one.” I disagree. The petition in the instant case alleges White was denied food on June 8 and 9, 1998 as punishment for refusing to shave. The suit was filed against the TDCJ and Felix Gordon, Edgar Petters, and Marcial Foisie. In reviewing the list of suits contained in White’s section 14.004 affidavit, there are only three filed subsequent to June 9, 1998 1, all still pending at the time White filed this lawsuit. Therefore, this lawsuit is not duplicative of any previous lawsuit and that fact can easily be gleaned from White’s section 14.004 affidavit. Consequently, the trial judge, in my view abused his discretion in dismissing the lawsuit. I would reverse and remand.

. One against Sally Carrier alleging filming in the nude; one against Lloyd Davis and Michael Prevost for excessive use of force; and one against Anthony Lawrie and J. Matthews for libel and malicious prosecution.