its taxpayers.” Gross, 2007 WL 2089365, at *1. The State’s interest in maintaining administrative control over prisons and inmate accounts is also significant. Courts are not ideally situated to oversee the minute details of prison administration. Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 404-05, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974), overruled on other grounds, Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 109 S.Ct. 1874, 104 L.Ed.2d 459 (1989). Clearly, the implementation of all the procedural safeguards associated with turnover or garnishment would be highly burdensome and costly to the TDCJ and likely would result in the inability of the TDCJ to efficiently collect any of the judgments or orders referenced in section 501.014. See Hickson v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397, 399 (Tex.App.-Waco 1996, no writ) (<HOLDING>). 2. Balancing the Mathews Factors in this Case
recognizing the legislative policy of requiring thepartiesto engage in meaningful presuit investigation discovery and negotiations and screening out  frivolous lawsuits and defenses recognizing that civil rights lawsuits are private only in form holding that prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the constitution recognizing that federal inmates filed 39000 lawsuits in 1994 excluding only habeas corpus petitions or other cases challenging the inmates conviction or sentence recognizing flood of frivolous lawsuits filed by prison inmates consuming valuable judicial resources