Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Michael E. GEIGER, Appellant
Paul A. HAMPEL, Appellee
the 150th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial
Court No. 2013CI13615 Honorable Renée Yanta, Judge
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
Irene Rios, Justice.
issues, Michael E. Geiger challenges a final summary judgment
order disposing of his claims against Paul A. Hampel. We
and Procedural Background
August 16, 2013, Geiger, an inmate, filed suit against
Hampel, a lawyer. According to the allegations in the suit,
Geiger sought to retain Hampel to represent him in a parole
proceeding. Geiger characterized his claims as claims for
invasion of privacy and injunctive relief and sought actual
and punitive damages. Geiger also complained of violations of
federal criminal laws.
was not served with the suit until August 1, 2014, almost a
year after it was filed. Hampel filed his first pleading in
the case, a summary judgment motion, on October 31, 2014.
Geiger filed an objection and response to the summary
judgment motion on January 13, 2015.
11, 2015, the trial court granted partial summary judgment in
favor of Hampel. The trial court then set Geiger's
remaining claims for a jury trial on May 26, 2015. However,
the trial was stayed when Geiger filed an appeal challenging
the partial summary judgment order. This court ultimately
dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Geiger
v. Hampel, No. 04-15-00329-CV, 2015 WL 4638070, at *1
(Tex. App.-San Antonio July 15, 2015, no pet.) (dismissing
appeal because no final judgment existed and no authority
permitted an interlocutory appeal).
April 13, 2016, Hampel filed another motion for summary
judgment, raising both traditional and no-evidence grounds.
23, 2016, the trial court held a hearing in the case. Geiger
appeared at this hearing by telephone. During the hearing,
the trial court set a June 3, 2016 deadline for Geiger to
file a summary judgment response or any other motions for the
court's consideration. The trial court informed Geiger it
would consider the motions by submission; however, it also
informed Geiger that if any claims remained after ruling on
the motions, the matter would be set on the trial docket.
1, 2016, Geiger filed documents titled, "Motion for
Order of Default Judgment, " "Motion of Special
Damages and Discriminatory Violation of Due Process, "
and "Motion for Order Summary Judgment."
14, 2016, the trial court signed an order granting
Hampel's motion for no evidence and traditional summary
judgment and denying Geiger's recently-filed motions.
first issue, Geiger argues that Hampel's no-evidence
summary judgment motion failed to "prove or satisfy
actual no evidence as alleged in the  petition and
exhibits." Geiger's briefing on this issue is
confusing, but the crux of his argument seems to be that the
trial court erred in granting no-evidence summary judgment