Roy Butler v. Warden Moya, et al.--Appeal from County Court at Law of Coryell County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-00-369-CV

ROY BUTLER,

Appellant

v.

WARDEN MOYA, ET AL.,

Appellees

From the County Court at Law

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court # 00-3969

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Acting pro se, Roy Eugene Butler filed suit in small-claims court against the warden and several other employees of the prison in which he had been incarcerated. The basis of the suit was that, when he was transferred from one prison to another, some of his belongings, valued at about $150, were lost or stolen. He wanted to recover the value of those belongings.

The justice of the peace dismissed the suit as frivolous. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 14.001 (Vernon Supp. 2002). Butler appealed to the county court at law, which dismissed the suit and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court found that Butler had not complied with section 14.005 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which requires that an inmate seeking relief in court (1) file an affidavit stating the date he filed the grievance required under section 501.008 of the Government Code and the date he received the written decision from that process, and (2) file a copy of the written decision. Id. 14.005(a) (Vernon Supp. 2002); Tex. Gov t Code Ann. 501.008 (Vernon 1998). The court also stated: The grievance decision was rendered March 30, 1999, but Plaintiff s suit was not filed until August 3, 1999. Plaintiff, in effect, failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Regarding the dates, apparently the court was alluding to section 14.005(b), which requires suit to be filed within thirty-one days after the inmate receives the written decision from the grievance system.

Regardless of any merits of Butler s complaints about the dismissal, we do not have jurisdiction to review them. Section 28.053(d) of the Government Code provides that a judgment from the county court at law (or county court) after a de novo trial on appeal from the small-claims court is final. Tex. Gov t Code Ann. 28.053(d) (Vernon 1988) (formerly art. 2460a, 13). In the context of chapter 28 and considering the purpose for the creation of the small claims courts, i.e., to expedite and make more affordable civil claims of small monetary value, // we have interpreted the term final to mean there is no appeal from the judgment of the county court at law. Lederman v. Lowe, 3 S.W.3d 254, 256 (Tex. App. Waco 1999, no pet.). Other courts of appeals agree. Tumlinson v. Gutierrez, 55 S.W.3d 673, 674 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2001, no pet. h.); Oropeza v. Valdez, 53 S.W.3d 410, 411-12 (Tex. App. San Antonio 2001, no pet. h.); Howell Aviation Services v. Aerial Ads, Inc., 29 S.W.3d 321, 323 (Tex. App. Dallas, 2000, no pet.); Gaskill v. Sneaky Enterprises, Inc., 997 S.W.2d 296, 297 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 1999, no pet.); Davis v. Covert, 983 S.W.2d 301, 302 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, pet. dism d w.o.j.).

Butler s second issue is that the court should have granted his request to be bench-warranted from prison to court for a hearing, or in the alternative, to appear by telephone conference. This issue does not concern a final order from which appeal can be taken, and therefore we are without jurisdiction to address it. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. 51.012 (Vernon 1997); City of Houston v. Kilburn, 849 S.W.2d 810, 811 (Tex. 1993).

The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

BILL VANCE

Justice

Before Chief Justice Davis,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Gray

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Opinion delivered and filed March 6, 2002

Do not publish

[CV06]