law-pro-se-suits | inmate litigation prisoner's law suits |
TEXAS SUPREME COURT CASES: PRISONERS, PRO SE LITIGANTS
Higgings v. Randall County Sheriff's Office (Higgins II), No. 06-0917 (Tex. May 16, 2008)
(Opinion by Harriet O'Neill) (prisoner suit, defective affidavit of indigence, right to appeal)
LAWRENCE HIGGINS v. RANDALL COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; from Randall County; 7th district (07-05-00004-
CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 08-22-06)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral
argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
Justice O'Neill delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Jefferson, Justice Hecht, Justice Brister, and
Justice Medina joined.
Justice Green delivered a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Wainwright and Justice Willett joined.
(Justice Johnson not sitting)
Houser v. McElveen, No. 06-0504 (Tex. Jan. 11, 2008)(per curiam)
(appellate procedure, timeliness of notice of appeal, suit by prisoner)
BRUCE WAYNE HOUSER v. KENNETH W. MCELVEEN, ET AL.; from Jackson County; 13th district
(13-05-00426-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 02/09/06)
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, after granting the petition for review and without hearing oral
argument, the Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands the case to that court.
TEXAS COURTS OF APPEALS CASES: PRO-SE LITIGANTS, PRISONERS, IFP SUITS
09‑0731
JOHN FOX v. CITY OF EL PASO, THOMAS MAGUIRE, WILLIAM STERN, MARIO D'AGOSTINO, SAM JARVIS AND
JOHN DOE(S); from El Paso County; 8th district (08‑08‑00092‑CV, 292 SW3d 247, 07‑22‑09, pet denied Nov. 2009)
(pro se suit against city dismissed, governmental immunity, plea to the jurisdiction)
08‑0783
LAWRENCE W. FEW v. CATHERINE J. FEW; from El Paso County; 8th district (08-06-00234-CV, 271 SW3d 341,
08‑28‑08) As redrafted as amended (recusal of judge, denial of Indigency, pro se litigants)
Lawrence's first seven issues relate to the trial court's order sustaining the contest to his affidavit of indigence.
Lawrence argues that he was indigent; that he was incarcerated; that the contest to his affidavit was untimely; that
he did not have any property; and that he had previously been found indigent in a federal court proceeding.
We note from the outset that, although Lawrence appears pro se in this matter, pro se litigants are held to the same
standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable rules of procedure. Sweed v. City of El Paso,
195 S.W.3d 784, 786 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2006, no pet.).
08-0981
KIRK WAYNE MCBRIDE, SR. v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE - CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS
DIVISION, ET AL.; from Bee County; 13th district (13-07-00130-CV & 13-07-00305-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 08-28-08)
(inmate litigation, prisoner suits, pro se litigants, plea to the jurisdiction)
Kirk Wayne McBride, Sr. an inmate confined in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division
("TDCJ"), appeals from the dismissal of his pro se, in forma pauperis lawsuit against TDCJ, the University of Texas
Medical Branch ("UTMB"), and several members of the medical staff at the McConnell Unit of the TDCJ. The trial
court granted a summary judgment with regard to McBride's claims against the McConnell Unit medical staff, and a
plea to the jurisdiction in favor of TDCJ and UTMB. In two issues, McBride contends that the medical staff was not
entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, and that the trial court erred in granting TDCJ's and UTMB's pleas
to the jurisdiction. We affirm.
08-0410
JESUS MENDOZA v. PEDRO S. MONTANO M.D., AND JUSTICE OF THE PEACE ISMAEL "MELO" OCHOA; from
Hidalgo County; 13th district (13-07-00146-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 02-28-08, pet. denied Aug 1, 2008)(pro se appeal)
This is an appeal from an order of dismissal that purports to be agreed to by all parties. Appellant, Jesus Mendoza,
appearing pro se, urges that the trial court's denial of his motion to reconsider the agreed order deprived him of due
process and discriminated against him because of his disability. No appellees' brief has been filed to assist us in the
resolution of this case. We affirm. ... Without evidence or any documentation showing that the trial court erred in
some way, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in either not continuing the hearing on February
5th or by denying his request for reconsideration. The agreed order of dismissal is affirmed.
08-0173
WALTER MITCHELL v. CARLA BERRY, NORRIS BOOTH, BRAD NATHAN WALKER, JOHN DOE, MARIA ALICIA
GARCIA, URBAN REHABILITATION STANDARDS BOARD CITY OF DALLAS TEXAS AND CITY OF DALLAS, TEXAS,
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; from Dallas County; 5th district
(05-06-01328-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 11-20-07, pet. denied) as redrafted, as amended
(pro se suit, affidavit of inability to pay costs)
07-1038
ALINDA FRANCINE CARTER-THOMAS v. RICKY LYNN SULLIVAN; from Collin County; 5th district
(05-06-00990-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 11-06-07, pet. denied Jun 2008) as redrafted (PI-auto accident negligence, pro
se suits, deemed admissions)
Alinda Francine Carter-Thomas appeals a take-nothing summary judgment entered in this personal injury case.
Carter-Thomas, appearing pro se in this Court as she did below, argues generally that she is entitled to a trial on the
merits of her negligence claims against appellee Ricky Lynn Sullivan. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the
trial court's judgment.
Carter-Thomas alleges she suffered disabling injuries in a motor vehicle accident that was proximately caused by
Sullivan's negligence. Sullivan moved for summary judgment arguing (1) deemed admissions established that Carter-
Thomas's own negligence was the cause of the accident and her injuries, if any, and (2) Carter-Thomas could offer
no evidence of damages. Carter-Thomas filed a response to the motion, but the response contained no sworn
testimony or evidence in admissible form. The trial judge heard the motion and granted it; he subsequently heard
and denied a motion for reconsideration. Carter-Thomas appeals.