How cited: Leachman v. Dretke · Go Syfert

Leachman v. Dretke (2008)

green · 330 citation events across 3 courts. Showing the 50 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200520152026
Rule Authority · Tex. App. · 3 citations in this opinion
Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W. 3d 297, 304 (Tex. App.— 4 Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
See In re Douglas, No. 01-10-00482-CV, 2012 WL 682308 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Mar. 1, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.); Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 309 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.). 29 In his motion to dismiss, Dr. Morsy argued that Enriquez’s claims against him should be dismissed under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 14 because Enriquez had not established that he had exhausted the administrative remedies “provided by the penal grieva…
Quote Authority · Tex. App. · signal: compare · 2 citations in this opinion
Compare Jedkins v. Varghese, No. 14-08-00895-CV, 2009 WL 5149877 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 31, 2009, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (“Inmate complaints about actions of TDCJ employees are subject to the grievance procedure.”), with Leachman, 261 S.W.3d at 312 (“[B]ecause [Harris County assistant district attorney] Oncken was not a TDCJ employee, the exhaustion requirement addressed above does not apply.”). 16 employees.
“[B]ecause [Harris County assistant district attorney] Oncken was not a TDCJ employee, the exhaustion requirement addressed above does not apply.”
Rule Authority · Tex. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
Dismissal with prejudice may also be appropriate if the defendant is immune from suit, see Hirczy de Mino v. University of Hous., No. 03-03-00311-CV, 2004 WL 2296131 , at *6 (Tex. App.—Austin Oct. 14, 2004, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (citing Sykes, 136 S.W.3d at 639 ), or if the error cannot be remedied, see Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 312 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 304 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
See id. § 14.005(b); Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 311 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) (op. on reh’g); see also Walters, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 9119 , at *6.
Rule Authority · Tex. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
Appellant Morris failed to comply with § 14.005 by not properly exhausting all administrative remedies prior to filing suit.……………5 iii Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….8 Notice of Electronic Filing...……………………………………………………....10 Certificate of Compliance………………………………………………………….10 Certificate of Service……………………………………………………………....10 iv INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, 133 S.W.2d 124, 126 (1939) .................................................…
Rule Authority · Tex. Crim. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
Appellant’s claims are barred by sovereign immunity where there is no waiver for intentional torts. ......................... 10 CONCLUSION............................................................................................. 12 NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING ........................................................... 13 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .............................................................. 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE......................................…
Rule Authority · Tex. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
“In conducting our review, we take as true the allegations in the inmate's petition and review the types of relief and causes of action set out therein to determine whether, as a matter of law, the petition stated a cause of action that would authorize relief.” Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 304 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) (op. on reh'g) (citing Scott v. Gallagher, 209 S.W.3d 262, 266 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); Harrison v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim.
Rule Authority · Tex. App. · 2 citations in this opinion
“In conducting our review, we take as true the allegations in the inmate’s petition and review the types of relief and causes of action set out therein to determine whether, as a matter of law, the petition stated a cause of action that would authorize relief.” Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 304 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) (op. on reh’g).
Rule Authority · txctapp1
CODE § 14.003(a); Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 303 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.); see also Gross v. Carroll, 339 S.W.3d 718, 722 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.). 23
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 305 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
There Was No Evidence that LPG Intentionally or Recklessly Inflicted the Houghs’ Emotional Distress A plaintiff making an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim must “show that (1) [the defendant] acted intentionally or recklessly, (2) [the defendant’s] conduct was extreme and outrageous, (3) [the defendant’s] actions caused [plaintiff] emotional distress, and (4) the resulting emotional distress was severe.”9 Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 315 (Tex. 9 We ha…
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988); Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 305 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
“A claim has no arguable basis in law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 304 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
See Pena v. McDowell, 201 S.W.3d 665, 666 (Tex. 2006) (“Under Texas Law, [an inmate’s failure to list, with particularity, the operative facts of any suit previously filed in forma pauperis] may be corrected through an amended pleading, so a dismissal with prejudice is not appropriate.”); Harris County v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 639 (Tex. 2004) (“In general, a dismissal with prejudice is improper when the plaintiff is capable of remedying the jurisdictional defect.”); Leachma…
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
See Mukoro, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 2777 , at *6 (citing Woods, 60 F.3d at 1166 ); Hoffman v. Monroe, No. 13-13-00643-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 9655 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg Aug. 29, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.); Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 313 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
See Mukoro, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 2777 , at *6 (quoting Woods, 60 F.3d at 1166 ); Hoffman v. Monroe, No. 8 13-13-00643-CV, 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 9655 , at *5 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi- Edinburg Aug. 29, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.); Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 313 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 304 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) (op. on reh’g).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 304 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Gilbert, 490 S.W.3d at 606 ; Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 309 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Id. §§ 14.003-.005; Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 303 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) (op. on reh’g).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Gilbert, 490 S.W.3d at 606 ; Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 309 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Hamilton v. Pechacek, 319 S.W.3d 801, 810 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth 2010, no pet.) (citing Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 306 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) (op. on reh’g)).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Id. §§ 14.003-.005; Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 303 (Tex. App.−Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) (op. on reh’g).
Rule Authority
In that case, not only would dismissal under Chapter 14 be appropriate, but dismissal via a plea to the jurisdiction would also be equally appropriate. 13 Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 304 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.); Brewer v. Simental, 268 S.W.3d 763, 770 (Tex. App.—Waco 2008, pet. denied).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 303 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 303 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
See, e.g., Turner v. Delgado, No. 09-14-00339-CV, 2015 WL 7300711 , at *1 (Tex. App.-Beaumont Nov. 19, 2015, no pet.) (mem.op.); Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 312 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) (op. on reh’g); see also Tex. Civ.
addressing dismissals for indigent or incarcerated civil parties
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Texas courts have heeded the Supreme Court’s admonishment that, under the PLRA, “proper exhaustion” means “compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules.” Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 309 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) (quoting Woodford, 548 U.S. at 90-91 , 126 S.Ct. at 2386 ).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Thus, for a plaintiff to assert a claim under section 1983, he must show that “(1) the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and (2) the conduct deprived [that person] of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution, or the law, of the United States,” Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 305 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) (op. on reh’g).
green Mahuron v. TDCJ (2015)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
The “proper exhaustion” of the grievance process is accomplished by the inmate’s “compliance with an agency’s, deadlines and other critical procedural rules.” Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 309 (Tex.App-Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) (citing Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 , 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2386 , 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006)).
green Isaac Mahuron v. Tdcj (2015)
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
The “proper exhaustion” of the grievance process is accomplished by the inmate’s “compliance with an agency’s deadlines and other critical procedural rules.” Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 309 (Tex. App—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) (citing Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 90-91 , 126 S.Ct. 2378, 2386 , 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006)).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
The Appellees rely upon opinions issued by sister appellate courts that opined "proper exhaustion requires both the timely filing of grievances and exhaustion as to all claims and all parties." See LEACHMAN v DRETKE, 261 S.W.3d 297,310-311 (Tex.App.- Ft .Worth 2008) and RIDDLE v TDCJ-ID, 2006 WL 328127 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi Feb. 9, 2006).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Code Ann. § 14.005 ; Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 309 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) (op. on reh'g).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
CODE ANN. § 14.005; Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 309 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) (op. on reh’g).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 304 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 304 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 304 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 314 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) (citing See Am.
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Bishop v. Lawson, 131 S.W.3d 571, 574 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, pet. denied). ―In conducting our review, we take as true the allegations in the inmate‘s petition and review the types of relief and causes of action set out therein to determine whether, as a matter of law, the petition stated a cause of action that would authorize relief.‖ Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 304 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) (op. on reh‘g).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact.3 See id. § 14.003(b); Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 303-04 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
See § 14.003(a); Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 303 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 303 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.); Hickson v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397, 398 (Tex. App.—Waco 1996, no writ); see Tex. Civ.
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
CODE ANN. § 14.005 (West 2002); Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 308-10 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) (op. on reh’g) (describing grievance process). 2 Section 14.005, entitled Grievance System Decision; Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies, provides as follows: (a) An inmate who files a claim that is subject to the grievance system established under Section 501.008, Government Code, shall file with the court: (1) an affidavit or unsworn declaration stating the dat…
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 303 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Section 14.005(b) also states that "[a] court shall dismiss a claim if the inmate fails to file the claim before the 31st day after the date the inmate receives the written decision from the grievance system." Id. at § 14.005(b) (emphasis added); Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 311 (Tex.App. -- Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
Section 14.005(b) also states that “[a] court shall dismiss a claim if the inmate fails to file the claim before the 31st day after the date the inmate receives the written decision from the grievance system.” Id. at § 14.005(b) (emphasis added); Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 311 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
CODE ANN. § 14.002 (West Supp. 2012); Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 303 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008, no pet.).
Rule Authority · Tex. App.
See id. (b); Leachman v. Dretke, 261 S.W.3d 297, 311 (Tex. App.— Fort Worth 2008, no pet.) (op’n on rhg).