 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Balawajder v. Belanger3/3/2005
Appellant, Jeffrey Balawajder, originally filed this action in July of 1991, alleging civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Appellant is an inmate confined in a secure correctional facility operated by the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 14.001(3) (Vernon 2002). Appellees, Richard G. Belanger, G.J. Gomez, Robert A. Stauber, Bradley Bachmann, and Richard Lossow, are employees of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. He appeared in forma pauperis at trial by filing an affidavit of inability to pay costs. See TEX.R.CIV.P. 145. Appellant appears pro se on appeal. The trial court dismissed his suit as frivolous on June 2, 2003. Appellant brings ten issues on appeal. We affirm.
Appellant's original petition urged Section 1983 violations of his constitutional rights, claim-ing the following:
(1) that the appellees forced him to work at a TDCJID job while he had a hernia;
(2) that appellees assigned him to work at a job that was beyond his disability classification; and
(3) that appellees provided inadequate medical care or refused to provide essential medical care.
The underlying case was first dismissed for want of prosecution by the trial court on August 11, 1998. Appellant filed a motion to reinstate pursuant to TEX.R.CIV.P. 165a(3) after the dismissal. The trial court denied the motion without holding a hearing. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the dismissal based upon the trial court's failure to conduct a hearing on appellant's motion to reinstate. Appellant subsequently filed several motions asking that the State be sanctioned. Appellant attempted to pursue a second appeal when those motions were not granted. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals dismissed the second appeal for want of jurisdiction in the absence of a final judgment.
This appeal arises from an order of dismissal entered by the trial court on June 2, 2003. The attorney general filed a motion to dismiss under Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code alleging procedural noncompliance with the statutes. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §14.001 et seq. (Vernon 2002). The order of dismissal recites:
The Court finds the petition filed by [appellant] is not in compliance with the requirements set forth in Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Chapter 14.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court ORDERS that all claims against Defendants are DISMISSED as frivolous. Any other relief not granted expressly herein is denied.
Appellant complains in his first issue that the trial court erred in dismissing his suit under Chapter 14. As noted previously, appellant filed his original petition in 1991. Chapter 14 became effective on June 8, 1995. The enacting language provided that the Act only applies to a cause of action that accrued on or after its effective date. Accordingly, we agree with appellant's contention that the trial court could not dismiss his case under Chapter 14.
While the order of dismissal references noncompliance with Chapter 14, it also recites that all of appellant's claims "are dismissed as frivolous." We must sustain the judgment of a trial court if it is correct on any theory of law applicable to the case and supported by the record, regardless of whether the trial court gives the correct legal reason for the judgment or whether it gives any reason at all. See Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex.1990);Point Lookout West, Inc. v. Whorton, 742 S.W.2d 277, 278 (Tex.1987). Harrington v. Railroad Commission, 375 S.W.2d 892, 895 (Tex.1964); Gulf Land Co. v. Atlantic Refining Co., 13
Page 1 2 3 Texas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|