Bypassing Rule 145: Using Chapter 14 to Dismiss Incarcerated Parents’ Family Law Filings Without a Hearing

Memorandum Opinion by Justice West, 13-25-00338-CV, January 29, 2026.

On appeal from the 156th District Court of Bee County, Texas

Synopsis

The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of an inmate’s civil suit, holding that a trial court acts within its discretion under Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code when it dismisses a claim based on a false affidavit of poverty. Crucially, the court clarified that Chapter 14 permits dismissal without a hearing or service of process, bypassing the more rigorous procedural requirements found in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145.

Relevance to Family Law

While Rice originated as a tort claim against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, its procedural mechanisms are a potent tool for family law practitioners facing litigation from incarcerated parents. In suits affecting the parent-child relationship (SAPCR) or modifications initiated by inmates, the petitioner often files an affidavit of indigence to waive costs. This ruling confirms that counsel can move for dismissal—or the court can act sua sponte—the moment an inmate’s certified trust account statement contradicts their claim of poverty, effectively terminating nuisance litigation before it reaches the evidentiary stage.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Reginald Donell Rice, an inmate at the McConnell Unit, filed a negligence and strict liability suit against the TDCJ alleging food poisoning. Along with his petition, Rice filed an affidavit of poverty claiming he had no source of income other than $20 per month from family. However, his certified inmate trust account statement told a different story, revealing an average monthly deposit of $48.68. The Attorney General, acting as amicus curiae, alerted the trial court to this discrepancy. Without holding a hearing or requiring service of the motion on Rice, the trial court dismissed the suit without prejudice. Rice appealed, arguing he was entitled to the procedural protections of Rule 145, including a hearing and detailed findings of fact.

Issues Decided

The primary issue was whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the inmate’s suit under Chapter 14 based on the falsity of his poverty allegation. Subordinate issues included whether the trial court was required to hold an evidentiary hearing under Rule 145, whether the inmate was entitled to service of the amicus brief, and whether the court was required to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Rules Applied

The court’s analysis centered on Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 14, specifically § 14.003, which allows a court to dismiss an inmate’s claim if the allegation of poverty in an affidavit is false. The court distinguished this from Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145, which generally governs parties’ inability to pay costs. Unlike Rule 145, which necessitates an evidentiary hearing and specific findings before a party can be required to pay costs, Chapter 14 is a specialized statute designed to curb frivolous inmate litigation. It explicitly allows for dismissal “either before or after service” and does not mandate a hearing.

Application

The court conducted a side-by-side comparison of Rice’s affidavit and his certified trust account statement. Because the account statement showed nearly $50 in monthly deposits—contrary to Rice’s claim of $20—the trial court’s finding of falsity was supported by the record. The appellate court rejected Rice’s argument that Rule 145’s procedural hurdles applied here. It reasoned that because Rice’s dismissal was rooted in the specific provisions of § 14.003 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, the trial court was not bound by Rule 145’s hearing requirement. Furthermore, the court noted that because the falsity was apparent from the face of the documents Rice himself was required to file, the lack of service of the amicus brief did not constitute reversible error.

Holding

The court held that a trial court does not abuse its discretion by dismissing an inmate’s lawsuit under Chapter 14 when trust account records contradict an inmate’s affidavit of indigence. An inmate with any funds in a trust account may be deemed non-indigent for the purposes of Chapter 14.

The court further held that Section 14.003 permits dismissal without a hearing and before service of process. The procedural requirements of Rule 145 do not override the specific statutory authority granted to trial courts under Chapter 14 to manage inmate litigation.

Practical Application

For the family law litigator, this case is a blueprint for disposing of “jailhouse lawyer” modifications. When an incarcerated parent files a pro se motion to modify the parent-child relationship or a bill of review, they almost invariably file an affidavit of indigence. Immediately request or subpoena the certified inmate trust account statement. If there is even a minor discrepancy between the “average monthly deposits” and the parent’s affidavit, Chapter 14 provides a trapdoor to dismiss the case without the necessity of a hearing, saving the client significant fees and the stress of a court appearance.

Checklists

Attacking the Inmate Affidavit

• Obtain the Trust Statement: Ensure you have the certified copy of the inmate’s trust account statement for the preceding six months.
• Compare the Totals: Look specifically at “average monthly deposits” versus the income reported in the affidavit.
• File an Amicus or Suggestion to the Court: Even if your client hasn’t been served, you can alert the court to the Chapter 14 violation.
• Request Immediate Dismissal: Explicitly cite § 14.003(a) and Rice v. TDCJ to remind the court that no hearing is necessary.

Defending Against Procedural Appeals

• Distinguish Rule 145: If the inmate argues they were denied a hearing, point to the Rice distinction between Rule 145 and Chapter 14.
• Verify Timelines: If the inmate requests Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, ensure they complied with the strict 20-day deadline under Rule 296; otherwise, the issue is waived.
• Focus on the “Falsity”: Emphasize that any funds in the account can negate a claim of indigence in the inmate context.

Citation

Reginald Donell Rice v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, No. 13-25-00338-CV, 2026 WL ______ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg Jan. 29, 2026, no pet. h.).

Full Opinion

The full opinion can be found here: Full Opinion Link

Family Law Crossover

This ruling can be effectively weaponized in Texas divorce or custody cases involving an incarcerated party. Incarcerated litigants often use the “inability to pay” status to launch high-volume, low-cost litigation against their former spouses, knowing the other side must pay an attorney to respond. By leveraging Rice, family law practitioners can bypass the Rule 145 “hearing on indigence” and move straight to a Chapter 14 dismissal. If the inmate’s trust account shows family members are depositing even small amounts of money (like the $48.68 in this case), the court has the discretion to find the affidavit of poverty “false” and dismiss the suit pre-service. This effectively cuts off the inmate’s ability to use the legal system as a tool of harassment from behind bars.

~~f7305466-3148-4b0e-8fb8-0709feba9a18~~