Tracy Eugene Gatlin v. Sergeant Clyde Turner, et al.--Appeal from 52nd District Court of Coryell County

Annotate this Case
Gatlin v. Turner, et al. /**/

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-95-187-CV

 

TRACY EUGENE GATLIN,

Appellant

v.

 

SERGEANT CLYDE TURNER, ET AL.,

Appellees

 

From the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court # 29,322

 

O P I N I O N

 

Appellant Gatlin appeals from an order of the trial court dismissing his pro se informa pauperis action as to officers Thomas Hudson and Morris A. Gonsalves.

Appellant Gatlin, an inmate of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division at the Alfred D. Hughes Unit in Gatesville, sued Correctional Officers Sergeant Clyde Turner, Thomas Hudson, and Morris A. Gonsalves, alleging that they refused to take action on his complaint that someone had stolen his headphones; that he was told to return to his cell; that when he did not do so Sergeant Turner grabbed him and pushed him; and that Officers Hudson and Gonsalves were present.

Appellant claimed violation of his civil rights, as well as injury by Sergeant Turner, and sought $20,000 actual damages and $10,000 punitive damages from each of the officers.

The trial court dismissed the case as to Officers Hudson and Gonsalves as "frivolous and malicious because the claim stated therein has no arguable basis in law or in fact." Kendrick v. Lynaugh, 801 S.W.2d 153, 155 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1990); Johnson Peterson, 799 S.W.2d 345, 346 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1990); Huntsberry v. Lynaugh, 807 S.W.2d 16 (Tex. App. Tyler 1991); Johnson v. Lynaugh, 796 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. 1990).

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Appellant's action against officers Hudson and Gonsalves as frivolous,

All of appellant's contentions are overruled. The judgment is affirmed.

FRANK G. McDONALD

Chief Justice (Retired)

 

Before Justice Cummings,

Justice Vance, and

Chief Justice McDonald (Retired)

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Do not publish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.