the County Court at Law Walker County, Texas Trial Court No.
Chief Justice Gray, [*] Justice, Davis, and Justice
Bobby Brown, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, challenges the trial court's dismissal of his
case against Appellees Geannie Jones and John Jackson, two
TDCJ employees. Brown filed this suit pro se and as
an indigent alleging that Jones and Jackson unlawfully
deprived him of personal property, including a radio, and
legal and religious documents. The trial court dismissed
Brown's case for failure to provide a copy of a Step One
grievance or an unsworn declaration regarding the denial of
his Step One grievance. Brown did include a copy of a Step
Two grievance. Because we conclude that the trial court did
not err in dismissing Brown's case, we will affirm.
statutory scheme for indigent inmate litigation is governed
by Chapter 14 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Tex.
Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 14.001-014 (West
2017). The legislature enacted Chapter 14 in an attempt to
control "the flood of frivolous lawsuits being filed in
Texas courts by prison inmates because these suits consume
many valuable judicial resources with little offsetting
benefits." Calton v. Schiller, 498 S.W.3d 247,
253 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2016, pet. denied) (quoting
Hamilton v. Pechacek, 319 S.W.3d 801, 809 (Tex.
App.-Fort Worth 2010, no pet.)). We review a dismissal under
Chapter 14 for an abuse of discretion. Mahuron v.
TDCJ, 494 S.W.3d 377, 379 (Tex. App.-Waco 2015, no
pet.). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts
"without reference to any guiding rules and
principles." Quixtar Inc. v. Signature Mgmt.
Team, 315 S.W.3d 28, 31 (Tex. 2010) (quoting Downer
v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42
(Tex. 1985)); see also Remsburg v. Marquez, No.
07-16-00460-CV, 2018 WL 912590, at *2 (Tex. App.-Amarillo
Feb. 15, 2018, no pet.). Another way of stating the test is
whether the trial court's actions were arbitrary or
unreasonable. Downer, 701 S.W.2d at 242. We will
affirm a dismissal if it was proper under any legal theory.
See Hamilton, 319 S.W.3d at 809; see also
Enriquez v. Thaler, No. 12-14-00016-CV, 2015 WL 4116724,
at *3 (Tex. App.- Tyler July 8, 2015, pet. denied) (mem.
14 sets forth the various procedural requirements an indigent
inmate must satisfy as a prerequisite to pursuing a lawsuit
in the state courts. See Hamilton, 319 S.W.3d at
809. Should an inmate fail to comply with these requirements,
his suit will be dismissed. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
Ann. § 14.005(b); see also Lilly v. Northrep,
100 S.W.3d 335, 336 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2002, pet.
denied); Easter v. TDCJ, No. 10-10-00060-CV, 2011 WL
2242590, at *1 (Tex. App.-Waco June 8, 2011, no pet.) (mem.
who is proceeding in forma pauperis, is subject to
the procedural requirements of Chapter 14, including the
requirements that he exhaust his administrative remedies and
provide copies of the documents denying his institutional
grievances. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.
§ 14.005(a)(1)-(2); see also Hatcher v.
TDCJ-Institutional Div., 232 S.W.3d 921, 924 (Tex.
App.-Texarkana 2007, pet. denied). The requirement in §
14.005(a) that an inmate provide copies of his grievances
serves two purposes: "First, the inmate will demonstrate
through compliance that he has exhausted his administrative
remedies, and second, the information provided by the inmate
will enable the court to determine whether the inmate has
filed his claim within the requisite time period."
Addicks v. Quarterman, No. 12-09-00098-CV, 2011 WL
597148, at *2 (Tex. App.-Tyler Feb. 16, 2011, no pet.) (mem.
op.). If an inmate does not substantially comply with §
14.005(a), the trial court does not abuse its discretion in
dismissing the inmate's case. Mahuron, 494
S.W.3d at 380.
review of the record reveals that Brown did not submit a copy
of his Step One grievance with his original petition or at
any point prior to the trial court's dismissal of his
suit. Nor did he include information in his petition or any
other document that reflected the date his Step One grievance
was filed, the date it was denied by TDCJ, or any reason for
his failure to provide that information. See
Mahuron, 494 S.W.3d at 381-82 (inmate may substantially
comply with § 14.005 by filing affidavit or unsworn
declaration that states filing date of grievance and details
why inmate cannot provide copy of grievance or date grievance
denied). The trial court did not, therefore, abuse its
discretion in dismissing Brown's suit.
affirm the trial court's dismissal.
[*]Chief Justice Gray concurs in
the Court's judgment to the extent it affirms the trial
court's judgment of dismissal. A separate opinion will
 In his brief, Brown does not
specifically identify any error committed by the trial
court-he merely re-states the allegations of his petition and
includes additional incidents that occurred after his lawsuit
was filed. While we have addressed whether the trial court
abused its discretion in dismissing Brown's case, we have
identified no other ...