Darrin R. Teague v. Vicky Seagroves, et al--Appeal from 1A District Court of Tyler County

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-03-00146-CV

______________________________

DARRIN R. TEAGUE, Appellant

V.

VICKY SEAGROVES, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 1-A Judicial District Court

Tyler County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18,665

Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On July 1, 2003, Darrin R. Teague, a Texas prison inmate, sued several correctional officers and a grievance investigator employed by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division. Teague alleged the defendants damaged his stereo headphones, which he had left in storage at the prison while being temporarily transferred to Smith County on a bench warrant. Teague also alleged the defendants illegally confiscated his headphones, one or more typewriter ribbons, some clothing, and his electric razor.

Teague had previously filed two grievances in an effort to recover his personal effects. The first grievance, submitted March 24, 2003, was denied April 28, 2003. According to a document entitled "Declaration of Ex[h]austion of Administrative Remedies," a second grievance investigator denied Teague's "step two grievance" May 28, 2003.

The defendants filed an answer to Teague's petition September 15, 2003. The defendants also requested the trial court dismiss Teague's petition for two reasons: First, Teague had allegedly failed to show he filed his lawsuit within the required thirty-day filing period. Second, Teague allegedly did not demonstrate he had exhausted his administrative remedies. The trial court dismissed Teague's lawsuit September 19, 2003, pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. On appeal, Teague contends the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing his lawsuit. We affirm.

We review a trial court's dismissal under Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code for abuse of discretion. Smith v. Tex. Dep't of Criminal Justice Institutional Div., 33 S.W.3d 338, 339 (Tex. App. Texarkana 2000, pet. denied). "The trial court abuses its discretion if it acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles." Id.

Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code governs lawsuits, except those brought under the Texas Family Code, filed by inmates of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 14.002 (Vernon 2002). The chapter further provides:

(a) An inmate who files a claim that is subject to the grievance system established under Section 501.008, Government Code, shall file with the court:

(1) an affidavit or unsworn declaration stating the date that the grievance was filed and the date the written decision described by section 501.008(d), Government Code, was received by the inmate; and

(2) a copy of the written decision from the grievance system.

(b) A court shall dismiss a claim if the inmate fails to file the claim before the 31st day after the day the inmate receives the written decision from the grievance system.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 14.005 (Vernon 2002). A trial court has a mandatory duty to dismiss a claim that is filed late. Id.; Smith, 33 S.W.3d at 340 n.2. Further, the Chapter 14.005 affidavit or unsworn declaration must give both the date the grievance was filed and the date on which a written decision was received. Draughon v. Cockrell, 112 S.W.3d 775, 776 (Tex. App. Beaumont 2003, no pet.).

In this case, the grievance investigator denied Teague's "step two grievance" May 28, 2003. Teague's "Declaration of Ex[h]austion of Adminstrative Remedies" does not state the date on which he received notice the grievance had been denied. Teague's declaration therefore fails to comply with the requirements of Article 14.005. Cf. id. (trial court properly dismissed suit where inmate failed to file affidavit as required by Chapter 14). Accordingly, the trial court did not err by dismissing Teague's suit because his affidavit does not comply with the requirements of Article 14.005.

We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: March 30, 2004

Date Decided: March 31, 2004