Kenneth L. Hill v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Opinion issued November 18, 2010 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-09-00418-CV ——————————— Kenneth L. Hill, APPELLANT v. Texas Department of criminal justice, appellee On Appeal from the 412th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 51712 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Kenneth L. Hill, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division (“TDCJ”), proceeding pro se, filed an in forma pauperis civil suit against TDCJ alleging the actions of a correction officer led to his entrapment in a cell door and subsequent injury. Without holding a hearing, the trial court dismissed Hill’s suit with prejudice for failing to file his suit within 31 days of TDCJ’s denial of his second-step grievance. On appeal, Hill challenges the court’s dismissal of his suit. We reverse and remand. BACKGROUND Hill is an inmate of the Wayne Scott Unit of the TDCJ. He complains that in October 2008, the actions of a correction officer led to his entrapment in a prison cell door and subsequent injury. After attempting informal resolution, Hill filed a first-step grievance in November 2008. Prison authorities denied his grievance request. Unsatisfied with the result, Hill filed a second-step grievance in January 2009. Prison authorities denied his second-step grievance request on February 4, 2009, stating that no new evidence had been presented to support his claims. Hill received the written grievance denial on February 23, 2009. On March 12, 2009, the trial court clerk’s office received Hill’s petition for suit against TDCJ. In April 2009, the trial court dismissed Hill’s suit. The court informed Hill that, “You failed to mail the suit within 30 days of the date of the denial of your Step 2 Grievance. The Grievance was denied on February 4, 2009, and the clerk received [notification of your suit] on March 12, 2009.” This appeal followed. DISMISSAL UNDER SECTION 14.005(b) Hill contends the trial court erred in dismissing his suit. A. Standard of Review The Inmate Litigation Act applies to civil suits brought by inmates who file suit in forma pauperis. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.002(a) (Vernon 2002) (stating that chapter 14 of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code “applies to suits brought by inmates in a court in which an affidavit or unsworn declaration of inability to pay costs has been filed by the inmate”); Warner v. Glass, 135 S.W.3d 681, 683 (Tex. 2004). In reviewing the trial court’s decision to dismiss a case subject to chapter 14, an appellate court applies an abuse-of-discretion standard of review. See Williams v. Brown, 33 S.W.3d 410, 411 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (applying abuse-of-discretion standard to dismissal of inmate’s suit for failing to follow statutory requirements of Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 14.004); see also Moreland v. Johnson, 95 S.W.3d 392, 394–95 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (holding trial court did not abuse discretion in dismissing suit brought under chapter 14 when appellant did not comply with section 14.005(b)). An abuse of discretion can be found when the trial court acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Jackson v. Tex. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 178 S.W.3d 272, 275 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, orig. proceeding). B. Applicable Law An inmate who files a claim that is subject to the grievance system established under Section 501.008 of the Government Code must file with the trial 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.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.005(a)(1), (2) (Vernon 2002); see Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 501.008 (Vernon 2004). The trial court must dismiss the suit if the inmate’s claim is subject to the grievance system and “the inmate fails to file the claim before the 31st day after the date the inmate receives the written decision from the grievance system.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.005(b) (Vernon 2002); see Mason v. Wood, 282 S.W.3d 189, 193 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009, no pet.). C. Analysis The court dismissed Hill’s case because it found that Hill failed to file his suit in the trial court within 31 days of February 4, 2009, the date TDCJ denied Hill’s second-step grievance. The time for filing suit pursuant to section 14.005(b) runs from the date the inmate receives the written decision from the grievance system, not the date TDCJ issues its final decision on the matter. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.005(b); Mason, 282 S.W.3d at 193. Hill attached the second-step grievance form, signed February 4, 2009, to his petition. Hill’s petition was filed on March 12, 2009. The petition includes a declaration that Hill received the second-step grievance decision on February 23, 2009.[1] See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.005(a)(1), (2). A date-stamp on the second-step grievance decision also shows Hill received the decision on February 23, 2009. To satisfy the time requirements of section 14.005(b), Hill was required to file suit before the 31st day after February 23, 2009, which is March 26, 2009. The record shows that Hill filed his petition on March 12, 2009. Because Hill filed his lawsuit before the 31st day after he received the written decision from the grievance system, it was timely. See Mason, 282 S.W.3d at 193 (holding that appellant timely filed petition because petition was filed within 31 days of receipt of grievance system decision). We sustain Hill’s sole issue on appeal. CONCLUSION We reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings. Sherry Radack Chief Justice Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Massengale and Nuchia.[2] [1] If Hill actually received the decision before February 23, 2009, TDCJ could establish the true date of receipt and challenge the timely filing of the suit, but it has not done so. [2] The Honorable Sam Nuchia, Senior Justice, Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas, participating by assignment.