Carl Mott v. The Texas Ethnics Commission, et al.--Appeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-96-245-CV

CARL MOTT,

Appellant

v.

THE TEXAS ETHNICS COMMISSION, ET AL.,

Appellees

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court # 30,343

O P I N I O N

Appellant Mott appeals from an order of the trial court dismissing his pro se in forma pauperis action as frivolous.

Appellant, a prison inmate, filed suit seeking an injunction to require the Texas Ethics Commission to hear "grievance violations of the ethics of Texas state government by certain guards and others," i.e., employees of the prison system. Appellant alleged the Ethics Commission refused to accept his complaints and sought an injunction to require the Commission to accept them.

The trial court dismissed his case as frivolous, and appellant appeals asserting the trial court's action gives rise to violations of constitutional guarantees.

The Texas Ethics Commission derives its authority and jurisdiction from chapter 571 of the Texas Government Code. Such chapter does not give the Ethics Commission authority or jurisdiction to hear "grievances and violations of the ethics of the Texas state government by guards and other" employees of the Texas prison system.

Since the Ethics Commission has no jurisdiction or authority to hear grievances and violations of ethics by guards and employees of the prison system, the trial court correctly dismissed Appellant's suit.

Furthermore, Appellant filed a pauper's affidavit pursuant to Rule 145, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Chapter 14, section 14.003, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, applies to suits brought by an inmate who has filed an affidavit of inability to pay costs. Section 14.003(a) allows a court to dismiss a suit before or after process is served if the court finds (1) the allegation of poverty is false; (2) the claim is frivolous or malicious; or (3) the inmate filed an affidavit or unsworn declaration required by chapter 14 that the inmate knew was false. In determining whether a claim is frivolous or malicious, the court may consider whether (1) the claim's realistic chance of ultimate success is slight; (2) the claim has no arguable basis in law or fact; (3) it is clear the party cannot prove facts in support of the claim; or (4) the claim is substantially similar to a previous claim filed by the inmate.

Section 14.004 requires the inmate to file a separate affidavit or declaration identifying each prior suit brought by the inmate, specifying the operative facts, the case name, the cause number, the court in which it was brought, the names of the parties, and the result of the suit. Id. 14.004(a). This section further requires the inmate to file a certified copy of his trust account statement from the department. Id. 14.004(c).

Our review of a dismissal under chapter 14 is controlled by the abuse of discretion standard. Abuse of discretion is determined by whether the court acted without reference to any guiding principles. Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, 133 S.W.2d 136 (Tex. 1939).

Appellant's petition was not accompanied by the affidavit or unsworn declaration required by section 14.04 or by the certified copy of the trust account as required by that section.

Chapter 14 was designed to control the flood of frivolous lawsuits being filed by prison inmates, consuming valuable judicial resources with little offsetting benefit. Hickson v. Moya, et al., 926 S.W.2d 397 (Tex. App. Waco 1996, no writ).

The supplemental filing required by section 14.004 is designed to assist the court in making determinations the Legislature called upon it to make; thus it is an essential part of the process by which the courts review inmate cases.

Because the court can dismiss where an inmate files a false affidavit or declaration, that same policy allows a court to dismiss a suit that is filed without the affidavit or declaration. Hickson, supra.

For all of the reasons discussed, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Appellant's suit.

The order of the trial court is affirmed.

FRANK G. McDONALD

Chief Justice (Retired)

Before Chief Justice Davis

Justice Vance and

Chief Justice McDonald (Retired)

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed January 22, 1997

Do not publish