Smith v. State of Texas (Tex.App.- Houston [14th Dist.] Sep. 17, 2009) (inmate suit dismissed)
AFFIRMED: Per Curiam    
Before Justices Anderson, Guzman and Boyce  
14-09-00057-CV Trent Alvon Smith v. The State of Texas, Nathaniel Quarterman, Alfred C. Janicek,
Jr., Michael D. Barnett, Kenzie A. Bond, and Pedro M. Boykin   
Appeal from 278th District Court of Walker County
Name of trial court judge not shown on appellate docket

M E M O R A N D U M   O P I N I O N

Appellant Trent Alvon Smith appeals from the dismissal of his pro se inmate case brought in forma
pauperis against appellees the State of Texas, Nathaniel Quarterman, Alfred C. Janicek, Jr., Michael D.
Barnett, Kenzie A. Bond, and Pedro M. Boykin.  We affirm.

In his first issue, appellant claims the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed his suit as
frivolous.  The trial court's order states the case is "DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS as to all claims for
failure to comply with Chapter 14 of the Teas Civil Practices and Remedies Code."  The record reflects
that appellant failed to file an affidavit of previous filings.  See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §  
14.004(a).  Accordingly, the trial court was unable to determine whether appellant's underlying claims
are substantially similar to any previous suits and therefore frivolous. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
§  14.003(b)(4).  Based on appellant's failure to comply with section 14.004, the trial court was entitled
to presume the current suit was frivolous or malicious and to dismiss the suit.  See Bell v. Texas Dept.
of Criminal Justice - Institutional Div., 962 S.W.2d 156, 157 (Tex. App. -  Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, pet.
denied).  Appellant also complains the trial court dismissed his suit “with prejudice."  The order does
not support appellant's complaint.  Accordingly, issue one is overruled.

Issues two, three, five and six also claim, for various reasons, the trial court abused its discretion in
dismissing appellant's suit as frivolous.  Because we have determined the trial court properly dismissed
the suit for failure to comply with Chapter 14, we need not address these issues.  See Tex. R. App. P.
47.1.

In his fourth issue, appellant complains of the trial court's assessment of costs against  him.  However,
appellant's brief contains no argument regarding that issue.  See Tex. R. App. 38.1(i).  Accordingly,
nothing is presented for our review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Anderson, Guzman, and Boyce.