Preston Briggs v. K. Moore, et al.--Appeal from 87th District Court of Freestone County

Annotate this Case

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-95-107-CV

 

PRESTON BRIGGS,

Appellant

v.

 

K. MOORE, ET AL.,

Appellees

 

From the 87th District Court

Freestone County, Texas

Trial Court # 95-143-B

 

O P I N I O N

 

Preston Briggs, a prison inmate, brought an action in forma pauperis against eleven prison officials and correctional officers. Tex. R. Civ. P. 145. The trial court dismissed the action "pursuant to its vested authority under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. [C]ode Ann. 13.001." Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 13.001 (Vernon Supp. 1995). Briggs appeals, arguing that the court abused its discretion in dismissing his suit as frivolous without stating a reason for the dismissal. Because we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action, we affirm.

Trial courts have broad discretion in dismissing frivolous or malicious in forma pauperis actions. Thomas v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, Inst. Div., 848 S.W.2d 797, 798 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied). We review a dismissal under section 13.001 by determining whether the court abused its discretion. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 13.001; Johnson v. Peterson, 799 S.W.2d 345, 347 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1990, no writ). Abuse of discretion is determined by whether the court acted without reference to any guiding principles. Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, 134 Tex. 388, 133 S.W.2d 124, 126 (1939). Stated another way: Was the act of the court arbitrary or unreasonable? Smithson v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 665 S.W.2d 439, 443 (Tex. 1984); Landry v. Travelers Ins. Co., 458 S.W.2d 649, 651 (Tex. 1970).

Neither Briggs' petition nor his appellate brief cites statutory or constitutional authority for the basis of his cause of action against the defendants. // As best we can determine, his original petition asserts that the defendants conspired to retaliate against him because he had previously filed a suit against several of the defendants alleging they were "forcing him to go to school." // He also alleges that several of the defendants have filed false disciplinary actions against him. Briggs seeks $300,000 from each of the eleven defendants.

TDCJ-ID has, pursuant to statute, developed a system for the resolution of inmate grievances. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. 501.008 (Vernon Supp. 1995). The TDCJ-ID board policy on inmate grievances specifically applies to complaints about the interpretation and application of policies, denial of access to the grievance procedure, and reprisals against inmates for filing grievances. Tex. Dep't Corrections, Inmate Grievances (Inst. Div. January 1988). One of the remedies is "correction of records." Id. As to his allegations about the filing of false disciplinary reports, Briggs failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his claim. Pedraza v. Tibbs, 826 S.W.2d 695, 699 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, writ dism'd w.o.j.).

Further, we find Briggs' allegations that the defendants conspired to retaliate against him for filing suit against school officials insufficient to state a cause of action for civil conspiracy. Thomas v. Allsip, 836 S.W.2d 825, 828 (Tex. App. Tyler 1992, no writ); Thomas v. Arthur, 836 S.W.2d 822, 825 (Tex. App. Tyler 1992, no writ). The court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Briggs' claim as frivolous. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 13.001; Johnson, 799 S.W.2d at 347.

The Fifth Circuit has discussed the problems of inmates proceeding in forma pauperis under the federal statute similar to section 13.001:

Unlike most litigants, prisoners have everything to gain and nothing to lose by filing frivolous suits. Filing a suit in forma pauperis costs a prisoner little or nothing; time is usually of little importance to a prisoner and prisoners are not often deterred by the threat of possible sanctions for malicious or frivolous actions or perjury. . . . Thus, the temptation to file frivolous or malicious suits is strong, and these suits clutter up the federal courts, wasting scarce and valuable judicial resources, subjecting prison officials unnecessarily to the burdens of litigation and preventing prisoner suits with merit from receiving adequate attention.

Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1119 (5th Cir. 1986) (discussing 28 U.S.C.A. 1915(d)). Our legislature has recently addressed the problem of frivolous prison inmate suits flooding the state courts. Inmate Litigation, 74th Leg., R.S., ch. 378, 2, 1995 Tex. Gen. Laws 2921, 2922 (to be codified at Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ch. 14).

We note that in a three-month period Briggs filed four appeals with this court from in forma pauperis suits dismissed by the trial court. Three of these appeals were dismissed for failure to file a brief. In all, Briggs has brought suit against twenty-four defendants seeking almost seven million dollars in damages. He has sued some of the same people repeatedly. For example, he named "T. Morgan" in three of the four suits. Meanwhile, Briggs has also filed "federal civil rights charge[s] against most of the above stated defendants" in the federal court in Houston.

This appeal is frivolous. Damages should be assessed against persons bringing frivolous appeals from dismissals under section 13.001. Birdo v. Schwartzer, 883 S.W.2d 386, 389 (Tex. App. Waco 1994, no writ); Smith v. Stevens, 822 S.W.2d 152, 152 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 13.001; Tex. R. App. P. 84. We assess damages against Briggs of $100, which is less than ten times the otherwise taxable costs. Tex. R. App. P. 84.

We affirm the judgment.

BILL VANCE

Justice

 

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed September 20, 1995

Do not publish

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.