Court Opinion

ID: 9412390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-30 08:10:41.25235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:16.034205
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 25, 2023.

                                       In The

                      Fourteenth Court of Appeals

                                 NO. 14-22-00029-CV

                        JORDAN BALCIUNAS, Appellant
                                           V.
 CONSTABLE MARK HERMAN, SERGEANT JEREMY TALBERT, AND
          DEPUTY CHRISTOPHER GAINES, Appellees

                      On Appeal from the 334th District Court
                              Harris County, Texas
                        Trial Court Cause No. 2019-86261

                  MEMORANDUM OPINION
      Appellant/plaintiff Jordan Balciunas appeals from a final judgment in which
the   trial   court    granted   motions    for   summary    judgment     filed   by
appellees/defendants Constable Mark Herman, Sergeant Jeremy Talbert, and
Deputy Christopher Gaines (collectively the “Officers”). We affirm.

                                    BACKGROUND

      Balciunas filed suit in the trial court against the Officers, asserting various
claims against them.1 Each of the Officers filed a summary-judgment motion. In a
series of orders, the trial court granted each of these motions and disposed of all
claims and all parties. Balciunas timely perfected this appeal.

                                            ANALYSIS

         Under two issues on appeal, 2 Balciunas asserts the following:

         (1) The trial court erred in granting the Officers’ summary-judgment
             motions.
         (2) The trial court erred in denying Baliunas’s motion to reconsider its
             summary-judgment rulings.
         (3) The trial court erred in denying Balciunas’s motion to reconsider
             the trial court’s order sustaining the Officers’ objections to
             Exhibits A, B, and C in Balciunas’s summary-judgment response.
         (4) The trial court erred in denying Balciunas’s motion to reconsider
             the trial court’s order denying his motion to compel Herman’s
             deposition.
         (5) The trial court erred in denying Balciunas’s motion for
             continuance.
         Though our appellate record contains Balciunas’s petition, the Officers’
answers, Balciunas’s motion for reconsideration, and the Officers’ responses

1
  Balciunas also sued Harris County asserting various claims, but he later voluntarily dismissed
these claims.
2
    These are Balciunas’s two issues:
         1. Whether the statute of limitations on a fourth amendment federal civil rights
         false arrest claim based on malicious prosecution begins to accrue at the time the
         case is dismissed in the Plaintiff’s favor.
         2. Whether the trial court erred when it denied the Motion to Reconsider granting
         Appellants [sic], Harris County, Herman, Talbert, and Gaines’s Motion for
         Summary Judgment since he failed to negate the application of the discovery rule
         or any tolling doctrines to Appellant’s [sic] Fourth Amendment Claims for
         Excessive Force, False Arrest (based on malicious prosecution and false
         imprisonment), or state law claim for False Imprisonment.

                                                 2
thereto, our record does not contain any of the following:

      (1) any of the Officers’ summary-judgment motions,
      (2) any summary-judgment response by Balciunas,
      (3) any summary-judgment reply by the Officers,
      (4) any of the summary-judgment evidence,
      (5) any objections to the summary-judgment evidence,
      (6) Balciunas’s motion to compel Herman’s deposition or any
         response thereto, or
      (7) Balciunas’s motion for continuance or any response thereto.
      In Enterprise Leasing Company v. Barrios, the Supreme Court of Texas
stated that although an appellee who obtained a summary judgment in its favor in
the trial court had the burden to prove its entitlement to summary judgment as a
matter of law, on appeal the appellant/non-movant has the burden to take the steps
necessary so that the appellate record contains all of the summary-judgment
evidence, providing the appellate courts with a basis for reviewing the trial court’s
summary-judgment ruling. See 156 S.W.3d 547, 549 (Tex. 2004). The Barrios
court held that if the appellant fails to take these steps and any summary-judgment
evidence considered by the trial court before making the challenged ruling is not
included in the appellate record, appellate courts must presume that the omitted
evidence supports the trial court’s summary-judgment ruling. See id. at 550;
Aguirre v. Vasquez, 225 S.W.3d 744, 752 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007,
no pet.). Under the same line of precedent, if the appellant/non-movant fails to
discharge its burden to take the steps necessary so that, as to all challenged
summary-judgment rulings, the appellate record contains all summary-judgment
motions and responses thereto, then appellate courts must presume that any
omitted item supports the trial court’s summary-judgment ruling. See Hickman v.
PKD, Inc., No. 14-06-00117-CV, 2007 WL 2238399, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston

                                         3
[14th Dist.] Jun. 14, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.). Likewise, if an appellant challenges
a trial court’s ruling on a motion for continuance or motion to compel a deposition
and the appellant has not taken the steps necessary for the appellate record to
contain the challenged motion or the evidence relied on in support of the motion,
we must presume that the omitted motion or evidence supports the trial court’s
ruling on the motion. See Barrios, 156 S.W.3d at 549–50; In re Marriage of
Harrison, 557 S.W.3d 99, 118 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet.
denied); Nayyer v. Greenbriar Place Maintenance Assoc., No. 01-06-00566-CV,
2008 WL 183723, at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 17, 2008, no pet.)
(mem. op.).

      Rule 34.5(a), which lists the documents the trial court clerk must include in
the clerk’s record in the absence of a party’s designation, does not include
summary-judgment evidence, summary-judgment motions or responses thereto,
motions to compel discovery, or motions for continuance, but Rule 34.5(b) permits
a party to designate additional items to be included in the record. See Tex. R. App.
P. 34.5(a), (b); Barrios, 156 S.W.3d at 549–50. To avoid an application of the
foregoing presumption by an appellate court, an appellant must request under
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(b) that the trial court clerk include all
necessary items in the clerk’s record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(a), (b); Barrios, 156
S.W.3d at 549–50; Hickman, 2007 WL 2238399, at *1.

      Here, the clerk’s record does not contain any of the Officer’s summary-
judgment motions, any of the summary-judgment evidence or objections thereto,
Balciunas’s motion for continuance, or Balciunas’s motion to compel Herman’s
deposition, and the district clerk certified that the clerk’s record contains all the
proceedings directed by counsel or by Rule 34 to be included in the clerk’s record.
One of the items required by Rule 34 to be included in the clerk’s record is any

                                         4
request for preparation of the clerk’s record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(a). The
clerk’s record does not contain any request by Balciunas for the preparation of a
clerk’s record. Therefore, the record reflects that Balciunas did not designate any
of the following items to be included in the clerk’s record: the Officers’ summary-
judgment motions, the summary-judgment evidence, the objections to the
summary-judgment evidence, Balciunas’s motion for continuance, or Balciunas’s
motion to compel Herman’s deposition. In their appellate briefs, the Officers
pointed out that Balciunas had failed to carry his burden to take the steps necessary
for the appellate record to contain the items this court needs to review the trial
court rulings challenged by Balciunas. Nonetheless, Balciunas still has not taken
these steps.

      Because Balciunas has not taken the actions necessary for the appellate
record to contain the items this court needs to review the trial court rulings he has
challenged on appeal, we presume that each of the summary-judgment motions and
any attached evidence support the trial court’s rendition of summary judgment, and
that Balciunas’s motion for continuance and his motion to compel Herman’s
deposition support the trial court’s denial of the respective motion. See Barrios,
156 S.W.3d at 549–50; In re Marriage of Harrison, 557 S.W.3d at 118; Nayyer,
2008 WL 183723, at *5; Hickman, 2007 WL 2238399, at *1. Based on these
presumptions, we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting each of the
summary-judgment motions and that the trial court did not err in denying
Balciunas’s motion for continuance and his motion to compel Herman’s
deposition. In his motion for reconsideration Balciunas did not cite any evidence
not available to him when each respective summary-judgment motion was granted,
and we have concluded that the trial court did not err in granting the summary-
judgment motions. Therefore, Balciunas has not shown that the trial court erred in

                                         5
denying his motion for reconsideration. See Aguocha v. Newrez LLC, No. 14-20-
00797-CV, 2022 WL 678290, at 5, n.2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 8,
2022, no pet.) (mem. op.).

      We overrule Balciunas’s two appellate issues and affirm the trial court’s
judgment.

                                      /s/       Randy Wilson
                                                Justice

Panel consists of Justices Spain, Poissant, and Wilson.

                                            6