BRIDGEWATER v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE (2026)

OPINION

Appellant, Anthony Bridgewater, challenges the trial court's February 20, 2026 order dismissing his suit against the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) for negligence, equitable relief under the Texas Constitution, as well as apparent claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and other violations of federal law. Bridgewater contends the Brazoria County district court erred in dismissing his claims against TDCJ and TCEQ because the suit complied with the requirements of Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. Ch. 14. Further, he complains the trial court abused its discretion because it failed to explain why it dismissed the action, in addition to other arguments rooted in constitutional law and waiver. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Background

Bridgewater, an inmate housed in the C.T. Terrell Unit, in Rosharon, Texas, claims he suffered injuries due to contaminated drinking water and black mold in the prison. He sued TDCJ and TCEQ in September 2024 for negligence. In his underlying petition, he alleged bacteria and parasites tainted the drinking water. He said the mold caused him to develop asthma symptoms. Thus, he sought monetary damages of $1 million. Bridgewater in the suit stated he filed two Texas Government Code section 501.008 grievances regarding his injuries. He alleged that the first grievance, related to the dirty drinking water, was “still pending.” Further, he claimed his grievance regarding the black mold was “still under review.” In early February 2025, Bridgewater filed an amended and supplemental petition that appeared to seek equitable relief under the Texas Constitution, make claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and assert other violations of federal law.

TDCJ and TCEQ, in December 2025, filed a motion to dismiss, claiming Bridgewater failed to follow the requirements of Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Specifically, they alleged Bridgewater failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit and failed to provide documentation of the grievances as required by Chapter 14. The trial court granted TDCJ and TCEQ's motion to dismiss on February 20, 2026. This appeal, challenging the dismissal of the underlying suit, followed.

Chapter 14

Chapter 14 governs civil suits, other than suits brought under the Texas Family Code, filed by inmates in which the inmate claims indigence by filing an affidavit or unsworn declaration of the inability to pay the court costs. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 14.001-.013; see also Douglas v. Moffett, 418 S.W.3d 336, 338 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.). This court reviews the dismissal of an inmate lawsuit under Chapter 14 for an abuse of discretion. Hickman v. Adams, 35 S.W.3d 120, 123 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts arbitrarily, capriciously, or without reference to any guiding rules or principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241–42 (Tex. 1985).

A court may dismiss an inmate claim if it finds the claim to be frivolous or malicious. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003. A claim is frivolous if it has no basis in law or fact. Id. § 14.003(b)(2). When a trial court dismisses a claim without conducting a fact hearing, the dismissal can be affirmed on appeal if the claim has no arguable basis in law. Retzlaff v. Tex. Dep't of Crim. Justice, 94 S.W.3d 650, 653 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied). “A claim has no arguable basis in law if a prisoner has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.” Id.

The prison grievance system provides an administrative remedy for claims that would consume valuable judicial resources with little offsetting benefit. Enriquez v. Morsy, No. 01-18-00877-CV, 2020 WL 4758428, at *11 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 18, 2020, no pet.) (mem op.). Chapter 14 sets forth procedural requirements that an inmate must satisfy as a prerequisite for filing and maintaining suit in Texas state court. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.005. A trial court may dismiss an inmate's lawsuit for failing to comply with the procedural requirements of Chapter 14. Hill v. Smith, No. 14-11-00773-CV, 2012 WL 8017140, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 16, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.).

Particularly, Texas Civil Practice and Remedies section 14.005, titled “Grievance System Decision; Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies,” reads:

(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 date that the grievance was filed and the date the written decision described by Section 501.008(d), Government Code, was received by the inmate; and

(2) a copy of the written decision from the grievance system.

(b) 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.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.005(a)-(b).

And Texas Government Code section 501.008(a), titled “Inmate Grievance System,” states:

The [Texas Department of Criminal Justice] shall develop and maintain a system for the resolution of grievances by inmates housed in facilities operated by the department or under contract with the department․ A remedy provided by the grievance system is the exclusive administrative remedy available to an inmate for a claim for relief against the department that arises while the inmate is housed in a facility operated by the department or under contract with the department, other than a remedy provided by writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of an action occurring before the delivery of the inmate to the department or to a facility operated under contract with the department.

Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 501.008(a).

The Dismissal

Here, Bridgewater argues the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed his claims against TDCJ and TCEQ because his lawsuit conformed with the requirements of Chapter 14. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.005. He stated that “filing his claim prior to the return of the grievance process was not [ ] non-compliance” with Chapter 14. See id. He further argued that the trial court abused its discretion because it did not provide any explanation or reasoning for the dismissal.¹ Bridgewater also states the trial court's dismissal violates tenants of constitutional law.² Finally, in his reply brief, Bridgewater appears to argue that TDCJ and TCEQ waived their right to pursue dismissal of his claims under Chapter 14.³

TDCJ and TCEQ argue that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Bridgewater's claims because Bridgewater did not exhaust all administrative remedies as required by Chapter 14 before filing suit. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.005; Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 501.008(d). Further, they allege the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the suit because Bridgewater failed to include “an affidavit or unsworn declaration stating the date that the grievance was filed and the date the written decision․ was received by the inmate” and “a copy of the written decision from the grievance system.” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.005(a).

Relevant to this case, the failure of the inmate to exhaust administrative remedies is a ground for dismissal under Chapter 14. Retzlaff, 94 S.W.3d at 653. Before filing suit against the TDCJ, an inmate must exhaust all administrative remedies through a grievance system within the TDCJ. Morsy, 2020 WL 4758428, at *11.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Bridgewater's negligence claims against TDCJ because Bridgewater did not comply with Chapter 14. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.005; Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 501.008(d). Bridgewater states in his September 2024 underlying suit that the first grievance related to the prison's unclean drinking water was “still pending.” and his grievance regarding the black mold was “still under review.” As such, Bridgewater failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by Chapter 14 before filing his suit against TDCJ, justifying the trial court's dismissal. See Orihuela, 2019 WL 6872946, at *7 (“Interpreting section 14.005's requirement to exhaust the exclusive administrative remedies available under the grievance system (developed and maintained by TDCJ) as applying only when an inmate seeks a claim for relief against TDCJ comports with and gives effect to the plain language of the statutory scheme and does not lead to an absurd result.”). Moreover, he failed to follow Chapter 14's requirements because he did not provide any documentation of his grievances in his suit. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.005(a). Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Bridgewater's claims against TDCJ.

But Bridgewater's claims against TCEQ are separate from his claims against TDCJ. This court and its sister court have concluded that section 501.008's inmate grievance system, which “provid[ed] for an exclusive administrative remedy that [an] inmate[ ] must exhaust [before filing suit in Texas state court] and [that inmates must] show compliance with” in accordance with Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 14.005, only applied to an inmate pursuing a claim against the TDCJ that arose while the inmate was housed in a facility operated by the TDCJ or under contract with the TDCJ. Morsy, 2020 WL 4758428, at *13; Enriquez v. Orihuela, No. 14-18-00147-CV, 2019 WL 6872946, at *7–8 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 17, 2019, pet. denied) (mem. op.); see also Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.005; Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 501.008(d).

Consequently, his claims against TCEQ were not subject to the grievance system established under section 501.008 and accordingly are not subject to section 14.005's requirements. Orihuela, 2019 WL 6872946, at *8; see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.005; Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 501.008(d). In its motion to dismiss, appellee TCEQ made one argument. It contended the trial court should dismiss the suit because Bridgewater failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and comply with the procedural requirements of section 14.005. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.005; Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 501.008(d). This lone argument fails.

As such, the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed Bridgewater's claims against TCEQ based on noncompliance with section 14.005.

Conclusion

We affirm in part and reverse in part the trial court's order. We affirm the trial court's February 20, 2026 order dismissing Bridgewater's claims against TCDJ. We reverse the trial court's February 20, 2026 order dismissing Bridgewater's claims against TCEQ and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code grants trial courts special power to summarily dismiss prisoner suits. Retzlaff, 94 S.W.3d at 654. The court's failure to specifically state the grounds for dismissal is not an abuse of discretion. See id.

2.   Because we dispose of Bridgewater's challenge to the trial court's dismissal on other grounds, we do not reach these arguments. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.

3.   Bridgewater appears to argue that TDCJ and TCEQ waived their right to seek dismissal under Chapter 14 because they did not pursue dismissal until venue was transferred to Brazoria County. Bridgewater has cited no cases finding waiver under similar circumstances. We are not persuaded. Cf. Wigfall v. Tex. Dep't of Crim. Justice, No. 14-01-00260-CV, 2002 WL 245987, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 21, 2002, no pet.) (finding TDCJ waived complaint “based on appellant's failure to exhaust all remedies before filing suit with the district court” when it did not object to the trial court's ruling waiving Chapter 14's exhaustion requirement.)

Chad Bridges, Justice