Leachman v. Stephens, 02-13-00357-CV

• Decision Date: 10 November 2016
• Docket Number: NO. 02-13-00357-CV,02-13-00357-CV
• Parties: MATTHEW JAMES LEACHMAN APPELLANT v. WILLIAM STEPHENS AND KARRI L. HANSFORD APPELLEES
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

MATTHEW JAMES LEACHMAN APPELLANT v. WILLIAM STEPHENS AND KARRI L. HANSFORD APPELLEES

NO. 02-13-00357-CV

COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

November 10, 2016

FROM THE 78TH DISTRICT COURT OF WICHITA COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 160,142-B

MEMORANDUM OPINION¹

Appellant Matthew James Leachman, an inmate, appeals a take-nothing summary judgment. When prison authorities prohibited Appellant from receiving some of his mail, he brought a civil suit against them on March 17, 2004. Subsequently, when the prison authorities prohibited Appellant from contactingthe four victims of his convictions, Appellant expanded his pleadings to attack that prohibition as well. After over a decade of litigation, the trial court signed a final judgment on August 12, 2015. Appellant brings seven points of error: (1) the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on his victim-contact issues, (2) the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on his issues attacking the procedures for appealing denied mail, (3) the trial court erred by dismissing his state-law claims against the mailroom supervisor at his prison facility, (4) the trial court erred by granting summary judgment on his improper-denial-of-mail issues, (5) the trial court erred in its discovery rulings, (6) the trial court erred in failing to resolve his objections to the summary judgment evidence, and (7) the trial court erred in assessing costs against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Appellant and His Extensive Inmate Litigation History

Appellant is a pro se inmate. In 1998, he was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and received a forty-year sentence. We can follow Appellant's remarkable attempts—representing himself pro se—to reverse this 1998 conviction. Appellant initially lost in the court of appeals, but he later won in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See Leachman v. State, No. 01-98-01255-CR, 2004 WL 744820 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 8, 2004) (mem. op. on reh'g, not designated for publication), vacated, No. PD-0517-05, 2005 WL 2990698 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 9, 2005) (not designated for publication). Onremand to the court of appeals, Appellant lost a second time, and he contested that loss unsuccessfully all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Leachman v. State, No. 01-98-01255-CR, 2006 WL 2381441 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist] Aug. 17, 2006, pet ref'd) (mem. op. on remand, not designated for publication), cert. denied, 554 U.S. 932 (2008). Seeking habeas relief in federal court, Appellant lost in the district court, won a partial victory in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and sought without success additional relief from the United States Supreme Court. Leachman v. Stephens, 581 Fed. Appx. 390, 405 (5th Cir. 2014) (affirming in part and vacating in part denial of habeas corpus and remanding), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 2315 (2015). On remand to the federal district court, Appellant successfully obtained a reversal of his 1998 conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child. Leachman v. Stephens, No. 4:11-CV-212, 2015 WL 5730378 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2015). Ironically, his conviction was reversed because in 1998, the trial court had refused Appellant's request to represent himself pro se at trial. Id. at *5. Appellant is presently awaiting a new trial in Houston.

In addition to his 1998 conviction for aggravated sexual assault of a child, Appellant received three separate convictions in 1999 for indecency with a child and, for each offense, he received a twenty-year sentence. Nothing in our record suggests Appellant appealed any of his three convictions for indecency with a child.

B. Appellant Brings a Civil Suit While in Prison

On March 17, 2004, while serving the above sentences, Appellant brought this civil suit against a mailroom supervisor and the Director's Review Committee (DRC) of his penitentiary unit. The DRC has the final authority over whether inmates receive their mail. Appellant complained that some of his incoming mail was being improperly withheld from him because it purportedly contained child pornography, which Appellant denied.

Because Appellant was an inmate filing a civil suit under a claim of indigence, he had to comply with Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 14.001-.014 (West 2002 & Supp. 2016). Appellant included a declaration of prior litigation as required by section 14.004 of Chapter 14. See id. § 14.004. Appellant provided an unsworn declaration of inability to pay costs.² Appellant captioned his unsworn declaration, "Plaintiff's Rule 145 Declaration," which is a reference to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Tex. R. Civ. P. 145 ("Affidavit on Indigency").³ He included a "Plaintiff's Statement on Exhaustion of Remedies," as required by section 14.005 of Chapter 14. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. CodeAnn. § 14.005. Appellant also provided a "Texas Department of Criminal Justice In-Forma-Pauperis Data" printout showing the current balance in his trust account (fifteen cents) and the activity in the account for the previous six months, and, in Appellant's case, it showed that the total amount of money deposited into his inmate trust account in the previous six months was $390. Under Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, this information was required by sections 14.004(c) and 14.006(f). Id. §§ 14.004(c), 14.006(f).

C. Appellant Successfully Litigates His Suit Twice in the Court of Appeals

Over the years, this case has previously come before this court twice. It initially came up as an appeal. Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 302 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) (op. on reh'g). Later it came up as a mandamus proceeding. In re Leachman, No. 02-11-00368-CV, 2011 WL 5515498 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 10, 2011, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). In each instance, we sent the matter back to the trial court for further proceedings.

D. Appellant's Sixth Amended Petition

On November 13, 2012, more than eight years after Appellant first filed this suit, he filed his Sixth Amended Petition. Appellant sued (1) Rick Thaler in his official capacity as director of the Criminal Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and (2) Karri L. Hansford in both her personal and official capacity as the mailroom supervisor at the Allred Unit. When referring to Hansford in her official capacity, we identify her as "the mailroomsupervisor," and when referring to her in her personal capacity, we refer to her as "Hansford." Thaler retired on May 31, 2013, and William B. Stephens replaced him as director. When referring to either Thaler or Stephens, we simply use the term "the director."

In his Sixth Amended Petition, Appellant continued to complain about incoming mail being withheld from him. Over the years, the number of items seized by the mail room expanded to twenty, which Appellant identified in an attachment, Exhibit A, to his Sixth Amended Petition. The list describes the items withheld as follows:

• Item 1: Enclosures in a letter from Peter Reed received on 12/19/03 that the mailroom staff withheld allegedly because there were three pictures containing child pornography.

• Item 2: Tekkonkinkreet, a graphic novel by Taiyo Matsumoto, received on 8/29/09 that was denied because pages 112, 113, 117, and 118 contained photos of a nude child and because pages 220 and 221 contained sexually explicit images.

• Item 3: Enclosures in a letter from Peter Reed received on 9/25/09 that were denied because page thirteen contained (or because there were thirteen pages containing) a graphic depiction of indecency with a child, sex with a minor, and rape.

• Item 4: A letter from A.J. Oxton received on 10/7/09 that was denied because the letter contained a graphic depiction of sex with a minor.

• Item 5: Enclosures in a letter from Peter Reed received on 2/11/10 that were denied because they contained four stories involving sadomasochism or bondage.

• Item 6: These Were My Realities, a memoir by J.H. received on 3/12/10 that was denied because pages thirteen and fourteen contained indecency with a child.

• Item 7: Let the Right One In, a novel by John Ajvide Lindquist received on 4/8/10 that was denied because pages forty-one and forty-five contained sex with a minor.

• Item 8: Enclosures in a letter from Daisuke Ogo received on 6/15/10 that were denied because four pages contained sexually explicit images of a child, sex with a minor, and indecency with a child.

• Item 9: Enclosures in a letter from Peter Reed received on 7/29/10 that were denied because they were publications from an individual that attempted to circumvent the correspondence rules.

• Item 10: Enclosures in a letter from Peter Reed received on 9/27/10 that were denied because there was one story containing bondage and incest between two brothers and other stories containing sadomasochism or bondage.

• Item 11: Enclosures in a letter from Peter Reed received on 11/9/10 that were denied because there were two stories containing sadomasochism or bondage.

• Item 12: An enclosure in a letter from Peter Reed received on 1/11/11 because it was written in German and was, therefore, incomprehensible to the screener.

• Item 13: An enclosure in a letter from Peter Reed received on 7/15/11 that was denied because it was a publication from an individual.

• Item 14: Enclosures from Casey Nall received on 8/24/11 that were denied because they contained five sexually explicit or digitally altered photographs.

• Item 15: The White Road, a novel by John Connolly received on 10/31/11 that was denied because pages fourteen, fifteen, twenty-one, twenty-six, twenty-seven, and twenty-nine contained racial material.

• Item 16: Enclosure from Peter Reed received on 12/8/11 that was denied because it contained one bondage story.

• Item 17: Entire letter from Sandra Sanders received on 12/8/11 that was denied because it attempted to circumvent TDCJ correspondence rules.

•

...