The Ninth District Court of Appeals in Texas has affirmed a lower court’s decision to dismiss a case brought by Dwayne McQueen against several energy companies. McQueen, who represented himself (pro se) in both the trial court and the appeal, had his claims dismissed based on a legal rule that allows for dismissal of claims that lack a proper legal basis.
The Core of the Dispute
At the heart of the case is a disagreement over oil and gas rights in Tyler County, Texas. McQueen believes he has rights to land that has been operated by Zarvona Energy LLC for oil and gas production for about a decade. His claims are rooted in a 1950 oil and gas lease that, according to court documents, expired in 1955.
Previous Legal Battles
This isn’t the first time McQueen has tangled with energy companies over these land rights. Back in 2014, McQueen made claims against Zarvona’s predecessor, Anadarko E&P Onshore, LLC. Anadarko successfully obtained a permanent injunction against McQueen, preventing him from coming within a certain distance of their oil and gas wells and field office. In 2017, McQueen sued Anadarko and Zarvona, but the trial court sided with the companies in 2019, granting them summary judgment.
The Current Lawsuit and Dismissal
In 2023, McQueen filed the current lawsuit against Zarvona Energy LLC, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Occidental Petroleum Corporation, and Amarado Oil Company, LLC, collectively referred to as the “Appellees.” His claims were wide-ranging, including:
* Trespass to try title
* Trespass
* Breach of contract
* Constitutional violations
* Suit to quiet title
* Conversion
* Theft
* Non-payment of royalties
* Fraud
* Security interest fraud
* Negligence
* Tampering with oil and gas equipment
* Robbery
* Larceny
Occidental filed a motion to dismiss all of McQueen’s claims under Rule 91a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Zarvona, JPMorgan, and Amarado filed a similar joint motion. Rule 91a allows a court to dismiss a case if the claims lack a basis in law or fact. The companies argued that McQueen either didn’t provide enough factual detail to support his claims, presented unbelievable facts, lacked the legal standing to bring the claims, or that his own filings contradicted the essential elements of his claims. The trial court agreed with the Appellees and dismissed McQueen’s claims “with prejudice,” meaning he can’t refile them.
The Appeal and its Shortcomings
McQueen then appealed the trial court’s decision. In his appeal, he presented eight issues, essentially arguing that the trial court made errors in its findings and in applying the law. He also claimed that the defendants’ leases were invalid. However, the Court of Appeals ultimately sided with the energy companies, not on the merits of the case, but on a procedural issue.
The Court’s Reasoning: Inadequate Briefing
The Court of Appeals noted that McQueen was representing himself, and they are required to give some leeway to self-represented litigants. However, even pro se litigants must follow the rules of procedure. The court found that McQueen’s brief on appeal was inadequate. Specifically, the court pointed out that his brief made many factual assertions without citing any evidence from the record to support them. Additionally, the brief did not explain how the law applied to the facts of the case, and it failed to even mention Rule 91a, the very rule under which his case was dismissed. The court stated that it cannot be expected to guess about an appellant’s issues or search for facts or legal arguments to support a party’s position.
The Outcome
Because of the deficiencies in McQueen’s brief, the Court of Appeals concluded that he had waived his complaints on appeal. They affirmed the trial court’s decision, meaning the dismissal of McQueen’s claims stands.