Michael Kennedy v. Raul Mata, et al.--Appeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-94-049-CV

MICHAEL KENNEDY,

Appellant

v.

RAUL MATA, ET AL.,

Appellees

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court # 28,395

O P I N I O N

Michael Kennedy, a prison inmate, brought a suit in forma pauperis against two employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). His suit alleges that he was not given notice of disciplinary hearings wherein he was ordered confined to a single cell, his commissary privileges were taken away, and his good-time credit was removed. The court dismissed the cause, finding that the action's realistic chance of success was slight and that the claim had no arguable basis in law or fact. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 13.001 (Vernon 1994). We will affirm.

The procedure for inmates to process grievances and appeals therefrom are provided in the TDCJ, Institutional Division, Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for Inmates, Revised May 1991. These rules and regulations provide a formal complaint procedure designed to serve the inmate, the administration, and the courts. Under these rules, an inmate must file his complaint with the Unit Disciplinary Hearing Officer. If he is dissatisfied with the decision of the Hearing Officer, he may appeal by following the inmate grievance procedures, a copy of which the Hearing Officer is required to give the inmate.

When the legislature has provided a mandatory method of review by an administrative agency, a party complaining of administrative action must resort to and exhaust that method of review before initiating suit in a court. Pedraza v. Tibbs, 826 S.W.2d 695, 699 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, writ dism'd w.o.j.). Kennedy's petition does not allege nor did he attach any documentary proof that he fully pursued his administrative remedies prior to filing this suit. Because he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, the court in exercising its broad discretion could have concluded that Kennedy's claim had no arguable basis in law. See id.

We do not find the court abused its discretion in dismissing the suit. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 13.001; Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, l34 Tex. 388, 133 S.W.2d 124, 126 (1939).

We affirm the judgment.

BOBBY L. CUMMINGS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Thomas,

Justice Cummings, and

Justice Vance

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed September 21, 1994

Do Not Publish