Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Osborne v. Siningal

Court of Appeals of Texas, Ninth District, Beaumont

May 11, 2017

MICHAEL WAYNE OSBORNE, Appellant
v.
WARDEN SININGAL, ET AL, Appellees

          Submitted on February 2, 2017

         On Appeal from the 58th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. A-197, 743

          Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          LEANNE JOHNSON Justice.

         Michael Wayne Osborne (Osborne or Plaintiff or Appellant), an inmate housed with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ") and incarcerated at the Larry Gist Unit, filed a pro se "Class Action Suit Original Petition, " on behalf of himself and another inmate, against Defendants Charles Siringi, Warden Siningal, and former Executive Director of TDCJ Brad Livingston in their official capacities.[1]Osborne sought to proceed in forma pauperis in the suit. Osborne alleged that on or about February 27, 2015, the Defendants negligently supervised Osborne's medical needs and violated his constitutional rights by placing him in a cell at the Larry Gist Unit with no emergency call button or officer monitoring his cell block when he had a "prior health condition . . . and other life changing diagnoses."

         Livingston filed his "Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Original Petition and Amicus Curiae Brief on Behalf of Defendant Siningal[, ]" and Siringi filed his "Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Original Petition and Amicus Curiae Brief on Behalf of Other Defendants[.]" Their motions asserted, among other things, that dismissal of Osborne's suit was appropriate because the requirements of class certification could not be satisfied and because Osborne failed to comply with Chapter 14's requirements.

         On April 12, 2016, Osborne filed a "Motion for Prohibitory Injunction Against Retaliation of Being Moved to another Unit[, ]" a "Motion for Leave to Amend Original Petition and File Plaintiff's First Supplemental Complaint[, ]" and "Plaintiff's First Supplemental Complaint[.]" In "Plaintiff's First Supplemental Complaint" Osborne alleged the same facts and claims as his original petition, but he did not include a "class action" reference in the title of the pleading, and the supplemental pleading appears to state that it is solely on behalf of Osborne.

         After a hearing on August 23, 2016, the trial court signed a final judgment ordering "that Plaintiff's claims against all Defendants are DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS for failure to comply with Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code." Osborne filed a pro se appeal, arguing that the trial court "failed to consider [his] amended motion for leave of court" and "Plaintiff's First Supplemental Petition."[2] We affirm the trial court's judgment.

         We review a trial court's dismissal of an inmate's suit for abuse of discretion. See Hickson v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397, 398 (Tex. App.-Waco 1996, no pet.). Under Chapter 14, an indigent inmate must file an affidavit or unsworn declaration that is accompanied by the certified copy of the trust account statement required by section 14.006(f). Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 14.004(c), 14.006(f) (West 2017). Additionally, Chapter 14 requires inmates who file a declaration or affidavit asserting they are unable to pay costs to file a separate affidavit or declaration that:

(1) identif[ies] each action, other than an action under the Family Code, previously brought by the person and in which the person was not represented by an attorney, without regard to whether the person was an inmate at the time the action was brought; and
(2) describ[es] each action that was previously brought by;
(A) stating the operative facts for which relief was sought;
(B) listing the case name, cause number, and the court in which the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.