Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Russell Jay Reger, an indigent inmate, appeals from an order dismissing his “Petition [under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202] to Take Deposition to Investigate Potential Claim.” The trial court dismissed the petition because Reger allegedly failed to comply with Rule 202.2(f)(1) and (2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and with �14.004 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code. Reger contends in four issues that the trial court abused its discretion 1. by dismissing as moot his motion to request the attorney general’s office to show its authority to appear in the case, 2. by finding that he failed to comply with Rule 202.2(f) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 3. by finding that he failed to comply with the Civil Practice & Remedies Code, and 4. by dismissing his discovery proceeding on procedural grounds “when the underlying potential claim stemmed from a void judgment” in a criminal case. HOLDING:Affirmed. Rule 202 is found in the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. A proceeding of the type described in Rule 202 is not an independent suit, but a proceeding “ancillary to [an] anticipated suit.” Office Employees Int’l Union v. Southwestern Drug Corp., 391 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. 1965). Combining the presence of Rule 202 in the Rules of Civil Procedure with the fact that those rules govern civil proceedings, and with the truism that a Rule 202 proceeding is ancillary to an anticipated suit, the court concludes that the anticipated suit must itself be civil in nature. Reger seeks to depose the trial judge who presided over his criminal trial to obtain evidence to nullify his felony conviction for murder. An attempt to nullify a felony conviction must be undertaken via habeas corpus instituted per Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.07. An Article 11.07 habeas proceeding is not civil in nature, but criminal. Ex parte Rieck, 144 S.W.3d 510, 516 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). So, because the anticipated suit or claim Reger desired to initiate is criminal, as opposed to civil in nature, the relief afforded under Rule 202 was unavailable to him. OPINION:Quinn, C.J.; Quinn, C.J., Reavis and Campbell, J.J.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.