In Re: Charles A. Lopez--Appeal from of County

Annotate this Case
In The
Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana
______________________________
No. 06-07-00011-CV
______________________________
IN RE:
CHARLES A. LOPEZ
Original Mandamus Proceeding
Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
MEMORANDUM OPINION

On February 15, 2006, Charles A. Lopez, an inmate at the Barry Telford Unit, filed a civil rights action against various prison officials alleging retaliation and interference with the postal service. In connection with his civil rights suit, Lopez filed a motion for discovery, an application for a temporary restraining order, a motion to compel, and a request for admissions.

Lopez has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this Court to compel the trial court to rule on these various motions. In its response to Lopez's petition, the trial court has delivered to the Court an order dismissing Lopez's claims. The trial court is authorized to dismiss a claim upon having made certain findings regarding the veracity or merit of the inmate's allegations. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 14.003(a) (Vernon 2002). (1)

In our disposition of Lopez's petition, we do not review the trial court's dismissal itself. The trial court's dismissal does, however, render the petition for writ of mandamus moot.

We, therefore, dismiss Lopez's petition for writ of mandamus as moot.

 

Jack Carter

Justice

 

Date Submitted: February 8, 2007

Date Decided: February 9, 2007

1. Specifically, the trial court may dismiss the action before or after service of process, if the trial court determines that (1) the allegation of poverty in the affidavit or unsworn declaration is false; (2) the claim is frivolous or malicious; or (3) the inmate filed an affidavit or unsworn declaration required by this chapter that the inmate knew was false. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 14.003(a).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.