Rollins v. State, No. 21-20482 (Unpublished Opinion)
(5th Cir. Aug. 29, 2022)
REPUBLISHED BY LIT: SEP 16, 2022
Before Jones, Ho, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:*
Randall Rollins alleges that the district court improperly granted the Defendants’ motions to dismiss, which terminated his case against several Texas judges, the State of Texas, the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct, and a county attorney.
The district court held variously that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims due to sovereign immunity and because Rollins had not demonstrated standing for his claims.
Additionally, the court determined that judicial immunity applied to bar any claims against the judges.
After review of the briefs and record, we conclude that the district court thoroughly considered the case brought by Rollins, fairly considered its jurisdiction and the defenses to the claims asserted, and committed no reversible error in its decision.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court essentially for the reasons stated in its thorough, well- reasoned opinion.
* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Petition for rehearing filed on 9/9/2022 by Rollins at CA5.
| General Docket United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit |
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Panel Assignment: Not available | ||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Randall E. Rollins,
Plaintiff – Appellant v. State of Texas; State Commission on Judicial Conduct; Lincoln Goodwin, individually and in his official capacity as Harris County Justice Court Judge; Harris County; Tommy Ramsey, Individually and in his official capacity as Assistant Harris County Attorney; LaShawn Williams, Individually and in her Official Capacity as Harris County Civil Court at Law Judge, Defendants – Appellees |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 5th Circuit – Appellate – 09/16/2022 15:35:54 |
Rollins v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP
(4:19-cv-01514)
District Court, S.D. Texas
APR 24, 2019 – | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: SEP 12, 2022
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS
The motions to dismiss by Defendants the State of Texas, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Harris County, Judge Lincoln Goodwin, Tommy Ramsey, and Judge Lashawn Williams (individually and in her official capacity as Harris County Civil Court at Law Judge) are granted.
Dkts 86, 87, 88, 89, 94.
The motion by Plaintiff Randall E. Rollins for sanctions against Harris County and its counsel, Patrick Nagorski, is denied.
Dkt 100.
1. Background
Rollins initially brought action against former defendant TD Ameritrade, Inc in October 2018 in Justice Court, Precinct 8, Place 2, of Harris County, Texas.
Dkt 7-1. A TD
Ameritrade agent had allegedly directed profanity at him and threatened to call the police. Among other claims, he sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress and sought $10,000 in damages.
Id at 2.
That case was originally before Judge Louie Ditta.
But Rollins filed a complaint with Defendant the Texas State Commission on Judicial Conduct and moved to recuse Judge Ditta.
Judge Ditta then voluntarily transferred the action to Judge Lincoln Goodwin at Justice Court, Precinct 4, Place 1 of Harris County, Texas.
Dkt 87 at 2.
What’s the cost to BUY a federal judge position in Texas? Anywhere from $30k (Jim and Allyson Ho – cheap 2 for one deal) to $75k (Charles Eskridge) https://t.co/KLr09Y8qNC
@thesundaytimes @Pontifex @IrishTimes @joerogan @elonmusk @SamsungUS @10DowningStreet @NGRPresident #Texas pic.twitter.com/8232ZotZKP— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) March 28, 2022
Rollins subsequently sought to disqualify Judge Goodwin and filed another complaint with the Commission on Judicial Conduct.
Judge Goodwin didn’t recuse, eventually entering a final judgment against Rollins in May 2019 and awarding TD Ameritrade $10,000 in attorney fees and costs.
Judge Goodwin also found that Rollins “demonstrated a pattern of harassment and misconduct in litigation” and that his five motions for sanctions were “baseless and presented for an improper purpose, including to harass and cause unnecessary delay.”
Dkt 7-10 at 2.
Rollins appealed Judge Goodwin’s order to Harris County Court at Law No 3 in July 2019.
Dkt 87 at 3–4.
TD Ameritrade moved for summary judgment.
Judge LaShawn Williams presided over the appeal and granted the motion in August 2019.
Id at 4.
As if the foregoing isn’t complicated enough, the procedural history of this action and its removal here is even more so.
Rollins separately brought action in March 2019 in Justice Court, Precinct 2, Place 2, of Harris County, Texas against the law firm and lawyers representing TD Ameritrade—former Defendants Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Kristen Jacobsen, and Shira Yoshor.
Rollins claimed in the second action that Defendants violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 USC § 1961, et seq.
Dkt 1-1 at 7–9.
They removed the action in April 2019.
Dkt 1.
A number of motions were filed before Rollins amended his complaint in June 2019.
Dkt 11; see Dkt 3
(objections to notice of removal);
Dkt 6
(motion to consolidate, denied as moot by Dkt 16);
Dkt 7
(motion for summary judgment, terminated as moot by Minute Entry of 11/29/2019).
The amended complaint added Defendants the State of Texas, the Commission on Judicial Conduct, Harris County, Judge Goodwin, and Ramsey as parties.
Three days later, he filed a second-amended complaint.
Dkt 12.
Motion practice resumed until Rollins filed his third-amended complaint in July 2019.
Dkt 20.
A number of motions to strike and to dismiss were then filed, many of which Judge Andrew Hanen denied in August 2019.
Dkt 14
(motion to dismiss);
Hey Congress,
When y’all gonna pass the Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act, to bring these Outlaws in Dirty Black Robes, called judges, back into line? Judges are replacing democracy with tyranny, and they have no respect for Congress. https://t.co/L5fbbwJz27 pic.twitter.com/WDFC3oFGN6
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) September 16, 2022
Dkt 17
(motion to strike);
Dkt 18
(motion pursuant to Rule 5(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil procedure);
Dkt 37
(denying Dkts 14, 17, 18).
Rollins then filed an affidavit of prejudice against Judge Andrew Hanen in September 2019.
Dkt 64.
Judge Hanen recused himself, and the action was reassigned to Chief Judge Lee Rosenthal.
Dkt 66.
The case was then reassigned three days later to Judge David Hittner.
Dkt 67.
Rollins then voluntarily dismissed his claims against TD Ameritrade, Greenberg Traurig, Kristen Jacobsen, and Shira Yoshor in October 2019.
Dkts 70, 75.
The action was then reassigned to this Court the next day.
Dkt 71.
An unopposed motion to stay all discovery and scheduling deadlines was granted in February 2020.
Dkt 80.
A motion by Rollins to amend his complaint a fourth time was granted in May 2020, with a number of pending motions to dismiss and a motion for default judgment being denied without prejudice.
Dkt 82; see Dkts 29, 31, 34, 36, 49.
Also denied were motions by Rollins to void and nullify the prior orders of Judge Hanen and for judgment on the pleadings.
Dkt 83; see Dkt 72.
Rollins filed the operative fourth-amended complaint in June 2020.
It’s difficult to understand, but he essentially brings claims for violations of the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, violations of the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment, and RICO.
Dkt 84 at 7–11.
He seeks actual and exemplary damages totaling $990,890,000 jointly and severally against all Defendants.
Id 11–12.
All Defendants moved to dismiss.
Dkts 86–90, 94.
Rollins responded.
Dkts 93, 98.
Rollins then moved for sanctions against Harris County and its counsel, Patrick Nagorski.
Dkt 100.
He argues that sanctions are warranted because he wasn’t “served a true copy” of the notice of an attorney substitution, namely Dkt 99.
Harris County responded by noting that it sent Rollins a copy of the notice to his email address on October 16, 2020.
Dkts 102, 102-1.
This is a Case of a Judge Protecting the Judiciary and Fellow Colleagues by Despotism
Death-Row Murderers and Rapists Obtain More Constitutional and Federal Protection in Houston Federal Courts than Law-Abiding Elder Citizens https://t.co/nwHcY8AQXR #appellatetwitter #txlege
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) September 8, 2022
2. Legal standard
Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a defendant to seek dismissal of an action for lack of subject- matter jurisdiction.
This also pertains to dismissals for lack of standing.
Moore v Bryant, 853 F3d 245, 248 n 2 (5th Cir 2017).
Federal courts are ones of limited jurisdiction.
Howery v Allstate Insurance Co, 243 F3d 912, 916 (5th Cir 2001), citing Kokkonen v Guardian Life Insurance Co of America, 511 US 375, 377 (1994).
The Fifth Circuit holds that dismissal is appropriate “when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the claim.”
In re FEMA Trailer Formaldehyde Products Liability Litigation (Mississippi Plaintiffs), 668 F3d 281, 286 (5th Cir 2012), quoting Home Builders Association, Inc v City of Madison, 143 F3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir 1998).
The burden is on the party asserting subject-matter jurisdiction to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it exists.
New Orleans & Gulf Coast Railway Co v Barrois, 533 F3d 321, 327 (5th Cir 2008), citing Howery, 243 F3d at 919, and Paterson v Weinberger, 644 F2d 521, 523 (5th Cir 1981).
Indeed, a presumption against subject-matter jurisdiction exists that “must be rebutted by the party bringing an action to federal court.”
Coury v Prot, 85 F3d 244, 248 (5th Cir 1996).
3. Analysis
Rollins proceeds here pro se. His filings are thus “liberally construed” and “held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.”
Erickson v Pardus, 551 US 89, 94 (2007) (quotations omitted).
Even so, his claims lack merit.
a. Motion to dismiss by the State of Texas and the State Commission on Judicial Conduct
The State of Texas and the Commission on Judicial Conduct argue that the claims against them should be dismissed for a number of reasons.
Most importantly, they argue that sovereign immunity bars the claims against them, that neither waived their immunity, and that Congress hasn’t otherwise abrogated their immunity as to the type of claims at issue.
Dkt 86 at 10–16.
Rollins responds that sovereign immunity only bars individuals from foreign countries and states other than Texas from bringing action against Texas in federal court.
Dkt 93 at 5.
VIDEO #1 – THE FICTION CALLED ‘RELABELING’
The full lawsuit re the “ClerkGate Scandal”, where a Clerk impersonated the Plaintiffs to unlawfully file a motion without their consent and without their signatures and more, can be viewed here: https://t.co/oqKfMyCdOl#appellatetwitter pic.twitter.com/dVxgyJJxkt— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) September 12, 2022
The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution states,
“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
In other words, the plain text of the Eleventh Amendment
“bars an individual from suing a state in federal court unless the state consents to suit or Congress has clearly and validly abrogated the state’s sovereign immunity.”
Perez v Region 20 Education Service Center, 307 F3d 318, 326 (5th Cir 2002) (citations omitted).
Despite the plain text of the Eleventh Amendment,
“sovereign immunity also prohibits an individual from suing his home state in federal court.”
Cutrer v Tarrant County Local Workforce Development Board, 943 F3d 265, 269 (5th Cir 2019), citing Hans v Louisiana, 134 US 1 (1890).
And
“Eleventh Amendment immunity operates like a jurisdictional bar, depriving federal courts of the power to adjudicate suits against a state.”
Union Pacific Railroad, Co v Louisiana Public Service Commission, 662 F3d 336, 340 (5th Cir 2011) (citations omitted).
“Even in cases where the State itself is not a named defendant, the State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity will extend to any state agency or other political entity that is deemed the ‘alter ego’ or an ‘arm’ of the State.”
Vogt v Board of Commissioners of the Orleans Levee District, 294 F3d 684, 688–89 (5th Cir 2002), citing Regents of the University of California v Doe, 519 US 425, 429 (1997).
And the Fifth Circuit plainly holds,
“The State Commission on Judicial Conduct is also an agency of the state.”
Krempp v Dobbs, 775 F2d 1319, 1321 & n 1 (5th Cir 1985), citing Texas Constitution art 5 § 1-a(2).
There are three exceptions that allow for suits against states, state agencies, and state officials in federal court.
One is that a state may explicitly waive its sovereign immunity.
College Savings Bank v Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, 527 US 666, 670 (1999), citing Clark v Barnard, 108 US 436, 447–48 (1883).
“A State’s consent to suit must be ‘unequivocally expressed’ in the text of the relevant statute.”
Sossamon v Texas,563 US 277, 285 (2011), citing Pennhurst State School and Hospital v Halderman, 465 US 89, 99 (1984).
“Waiver may not be implied.”
Sossamon, 563 US at 284 (citations omitted).
VIDEO #2 – THE FICTION THAT CLERKS CAN FILE MOTIONS ON BEHALF OF PARTIES
Williams v. Wood (5th Cir. 1980) (
“No immunity extends to clerks of court acting outside the scope of their jurisdiction, as is true for judges.
Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 1872).”). pic.twitter.com/bVfv71t2Dk
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) September 13, 2022
Another exception is that Congress may abrogate sovereign immunity through
“the exercise of its power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment— an Amendment enacted after the Eleventh Amendment and specifically designed to alter the federal-state balance.”
Florida Prepaid, 527 US at 670, citing Fitzpatrick v Bitzer, 427 US 445 (1976).
A final exception is that
“the doctrine of Ex parte Young avoids an Eleventh Amendment bar to suit” if the “complaint alleges an ongoing violation of federal law and seeks relief properly characterized as prospective.”
Verizon Maryland Inc v Public Service Commission of Maryland, 535 US 635, 645 (2002), quoting Idaho v Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 US 261, 270 (1997).
The RICO claims against Texas and the Commission are barred by sovereign immunity.
Neither has waived their sovereign immunity in this action, and “Congress has not unequivocally expressed its intention to abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity from claims brought pursuant to RICO.”
Gaines v Texas Tech University, 965 F Supp 886, 889 (ND Tex 1997), citing Bair v Krug, 853 F2d 672, 674–75 (9th Cir 1988);
see also Sissom v University of Texas High School, 927 F3d 343 (5th Cir 2019)
(proceeding on assumption that RICO doesn’t abrogate state sovereign immunity);
Chaz Construction, LLC v Codell, 137 F Appx 735, 743 (6th Cir 2005).
And the doctrine of Ex parte Young isn’t applicable, as Rollins seeks compensatory damages rather than prospective relief.
The claims against Texas and the Commission pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are also barred by sovereign immunity.
While Rollins doesn’t cite the statute, 42 USC § 1983
“provides a vehicle by which a plaintiff may seek redress for constitutional injuries.”
World Wide Street Preachers Fellowship v Town of Columbia, 591 F3d 747, 752 (5th Cir 2009).
But claims against a state brought pursuant to Section 1983 are barred because Congress hasn’t abrogated the states’ sovereign immunity from claims brought under that statute.
Aguilar v Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 160 F3d 1052, 1054 (5th Cir 1998), citing Farias v Bexar County Board of Trustees for Mental Health Mental Retardation Services, 925 F2d 866, 875 n 9 (5th Cir 1991);
see also Turner v Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 836 F Appx 227, 231 (5th Cir 2020, per curiam);
Spec’s Family Partners, Ltd v Executive Director of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, 972 F3d 671, 681 (5th Cir 2019) (citations omitted).
VIDEO #3 – FICTION THAT CLERKS ARE ALLOWED TO BACKDATE FILINGS ON THE DOCKET
A docket is defined by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts as a “log containing the complete history of each case in the form of brief chronological entries summarizing the court proceedings.” pic.twitter.com/obzsA9pSi1
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) September 14, 2022
And again, neither Texas nor the Commission has waived their sovereign immunity in this action.
The claims against the State and the Commission will be dismissed.
b. Motion to dismiss by Harris County
Harris County raises a number of arguments in support of its motion to dismiss, two of which pertain to standing.
Dkt 87.
The United States Constitution vests power in the federal courts to adjudicate only “Cases” and “Controversies.”
Art III, § 2.
A plaintiff must have standing under Article III to assert a claim in federal court.
That requirement ensures that federal courts don’t exceed their authority.
Spokeo, Inc v Robins, 136 S Ct 1540, 1547 (2016);
see also Salermo v Hughes Watters & Askansae LLP, — F Supp 3d —, 2021 WL 293311 (SD Tex).
To establish that he has standing to pursue his claims, Rollins must show
that he’s suffered an injury in fact;
the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct;
and
the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.
Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife, 504 US 555, 560–61 (1992).
It is the injury-in-fact criterion that’s at issue here.
The Supreme Court often summarizes this as a requirement for plaintiff to show “that he or she suffered ‘an invasion of a legally protected interest’ that is ‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’”
Spokeo, 136 S Ct at 1548, quoting Lujan, 504 US at 560;
see also Carney v Adams, 141 S Ct 493, 498–99 (2020).
A “concrete injury is, like it sounds, ‘real and not abstract.’”
Buchholz v Meyer Njus Tanick, PA, 946 F3d 855, 861 (6th Cir 2020), quoting Spokeo, 136 S Ct at 1548; see also Salermo, — F Supp 3d —, 2021 WL 293311 at *5.
The constitutional violations alleged by Rollins pertain to Harris County Justice of the Peace Local Rule 1.7.
This rule states,
“Unless written permission is obtained from the Justice of the Peace, recording or broadcasting of court proceedings is prohibited.”
He argues that this rule violates various provisions of the US Constitution because he wasn’t able to “preserve evidence” by recording the proceedings in Judge Ditta’s court before his case was transferred to Judge Goodwin.
He also appears to bring an equal-protection claim on argument that he was treated unequally as a white man, although this claim, too, centers on the same asserted injury—an inability to record court proceedings.
Dkt 84 at 9.
VIDEO #4 A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION CANNOT BE REFILED WHEN IT’S ALREADY BEEN DENIED BY THE 3-PANEL
The Burkes response explaining this was blanked by United States District Judge Alfred Homer Bennett of SDTX, Houston Div’n. pic.twitter.com/wvdbsz85hR
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) September 15, 2022
Harris County argues that Rollins hasn’t suffered any injury.
Dkt 87 at 9–11.
It reasons that when the case was transferred from Judge Ditta (who apparently didn’t allow recordings) to Judge Goodwin (who apparently did), Rollins had the opportunity to present any evidence and make any arguments that he previously wasn’t able to record.
The County also argues that even if the evidence wasn’t preserved before Judges Ditta and Goodwin, Rollins was entitled to de novo review on appeal— meaning that he could have (again) presented any evidence and made any argument he wished.
Id at 11.
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 506.3 provides that, on appeal from a justice court,
“The case must be tried de novo in the county court.”
The same rule further provides,
“A trial de novo is a new trial in which the entire case is presented as if there had been no previous trial.”
Ibid.
Rollins thus had opportunities to record his proceedings upon transfer to Judge Godwin’s court and on appeal, during which he could have introduced any evidence or raised any prior arguments.
As such, Rollins hasn’t demonstrated that he’s suffered an injury in fact as to his constitutional claims.
The County also argues that Rollins lacks standing to pursue his civil RICO claims.
Dkt 87 at 11–13.
The pertinent statutory section states,
“Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefore.”
18 USC § 1964(c).
The Fifth Circuit has explained that a plaintiff can’t bring a civil RICO action unless he can show a concrete financial loss.
Patterson v Mobil Oil Corp, 335 F3d 476, 492 (5th Cir 2003), citing In re Taxable Municipal Bond Securities Litigation, 51 F3d 518, 523 (5th Cir 1995).
And the Fifth Circuit has further clarified that a RICO plaintiff must show a “conclusive financial loss” and not harm to “mere expectancy” or “intangible” interests.
Gil Ramirez Group, LLC v Houston Independent School District, 786 F3d 400, 408 (5th Cir 2015), citing Price v Pinnacle Brands, Inc, 138 F3d 602, 607 (5th Cir 1998).
THE LAWLESS LAWYER CLAY VILT AND HIS FRIENDS IN DIRTY ROBES
Oh Look, it’s US Federal Judge Alfred H. Bennett again, involved in another crime-ridden case @uscourts
The VILT/FORSYTHE Scam, an illegal rent back scheme which is criminal in nature @TXAG https://t.co/eM2R7BHCun pic.twitter.com/brUBXhRSnx
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) September 11, 2022
By this, the County argues that Rollins fails to allege a direct, tangible financial loss to his business or property, and that he fails to show that any RICO violation was the proximate cause of his injuries.
Dkt 87 at 11–13.
Rollins doesn’t address his standing under RICO in his response.
Dkt 93.
Opposition is thus waived.
Rule 7.4, Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Regardless, Rollins hasn’t alleged that he’s incurred a conclusive financial loss.
Dkt 84.
He thus lacks standing to bring action under RICO.
Leamon v KBR, Inc, 2011 WL 13340587, *2 (SD Tex 2011); Pena v Mariner Health Care, Inc, 2010 WL 2671571, *3 (SD Tex); Price, 138 F3d at 606–07; Zervas v Faulkner, 861 F2d 823, 833 (5th Cir 1988).
The County also brings other arguments, but they needn’t be considered.
The claims against it will be dismissed.
c. Motion to dismiss by Judges Goodwin and Williams
Judges Goodwin and Williams both argue that subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking as to the claims against them pursuant to judicial immunity.
Dkt 88 at 9; Dkt 94 at 9–13.
As to Judge Goodwin, Rollins responds that he “usurped” his jurisdiction, apparently asserting that he waived his immunity.
Dkt 93 at 15.
As to Judge Williams, Rollins responds that she acted ultra vires and without jurisdiction after Rollins filed an affidavit of prejudice against her.
Dkt 93 at 6–7.
These judges are without question entitled to judicial immunity.
The Fifth Circuit holds,
“Judges enjoy absolute immunity from suit for acts undertaken in their judicial capacity, even those done maliciously or corruptly.”
Price v Porter, 351 F Appx 925, 927 (5th Cir 2009, per curiam), citing Mireles v Waco, 502 US 9, 10 (1991).
The actions of Judges Goodwin and Williams were plainly undertaken in their judicial capacity.
There are two exceptions to judicial immunity, pertaining to actions taken by a judge either in a non-judicial role or in the complete absence of jurisdiction.
Ibid, quoting Mireles, 502 US at 9, 11–12.
But neither applies here, where each judge had jurisdiction and acted solely in his or her judicial capacity while presiding over the action.
And to be clear, the affidavit of prejudice by Rollins against Judge Williams didn’t divest her of jurisdiction.
Rule 18(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure governs recusal and disqualification of judges and it doesn’t purport to be jurisdictional.
Judges Goodwin and Williams also raise other arguments, but they needn’t be considered.
The claims against them will be dismissed.
d. Motion to dismiss by Ramsey
Rollins also brings a civil RICO claim against Ramsey.
Dkt 84 at 9–10.
Ramsey argues that Rollins doesn’t have standing to bring such claim against him.
Dkt 89 at 9–11.
Rollins again doesn’t address his standing to bring civil RICO claims in his response, thus waiving opposition under Local Rule 7.4.
Rollins also fails (as above) to show a cognizable injury recognized by the statute.
Price, 138 F3d at 606–07; Zervas, 861 F2d at 833.
The claims against Ramsey will be dismissed.
Was it worth it Judge Cory Sepolio? Regent and Associates are not actively bonded with the @TXsecofstate to collect DEBTS and instead of an injunction or a cease and desist, you allow the rogue debt collector to serve the Navy Credit Union? You’re an OUTLAW IN A DIRTY BLACK ROBE. pic.twitter.com/xRwFOKJcAm
— lawsinusa (@lawsinusa) September 14, 2022
4. Potential for repleading
A district court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.”
FRCP 15(a)(2).
The Fifth Circuit holds that this “evinces a bias in favor of granting leave to amend.”
Carroll v Fort James Corp, 470 F3d 1171, 1175 (5th Cir 2006) (citation omitted).
But the decision whether to grant leave to amend is within the sound discretion of the district court.
Pervasive Software Inc v Lexware GmbH & Co KG, 688 F3d 214, 232 (5th Cir 2012) (citation omitted).
It may be denied “when it would cause undue delay, be the result of bad faith, represent the repeated failure to cure previous amendments, create undue prejudice, or be futile.”
Morgan v Chapman, 969 F3d 238, 248 (5th Cir), citing Smith v EMC Corp, 393 F3d 590, 595 (5th Cir 2004).
Rollins has filed four complaints in federal court.
Dkts 11, 12, 20, 84.
Even so, he fails to state claims that can survive jurisdictional attack.
Any further attempt to amend would be futile.
Dismissal will be with prejudice.
5. Conclusion
The motions to dismiss by Defendants Harris County, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the State of Texas, Judge Lincoln Goodwin, Judge LaShawn Williams, and Tommy Ramsey are GRANTED.
Dkts 86, 87, 88, 89, 94.
The claims by Plaintiff Randall E. Rollins are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Dkt 84.
The motion for sanctions by Rollins is DENIED AS MOOT.
Dkt 100.
This is a FINAL JUDGMENT. SO ORDERED.
Signed on August 11, 2021, at Houston, Texas.
Rollins appealed to CA5.
U.S. District Court
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Houston)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:19-cv-01514
| Rollins v. Greenberg Traurig, LLP et al Assigned to: Judge Charles Eskridge
Cause: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act |
Date Filed: 04/24/2019 Date Terminated: 08/11/2021 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 470 Racketeer/Corrupt Organization Jurisdiction: Federal Question |
| Plaintiff | ||
| Randall E. Rollins | represented by | Randall E. Rollins 4808 Fairmont Pkwy #10 Pasadena, TX 77505-3722 713-817-7088 PRO SE |
| V. | ||
| Defendant | ||
| Greenberg Traurig, LLP TERMINATED: 11/29/2019 |
represented by | John T Cox , III Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2100 Dallas, TX 75201 214-698-3256 Fax: 214-571-2923 Email: tcox@gibsondunn.com TERMINATED: 11/29/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY |
| Defendant | ||
| Kristen Jacobsen TERMINATED: 11/29/2019 |
represented by | John T Cox , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY |
| Defendant | ||
| Shira Yoshor TERMINATED: 11/29/2019 |
represented by | John T Cox , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY |
| Defendant | ||
| State of Texas | represented by | Benjamin Lindberg Dower Office of the Attorney General 300 West 15th St Austin, TX 78701 512-463-2120 Fax: (512) 370-9069 Email: benjamin.dower@oag.texas.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCynthia Oghenovo Akatugba Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 12548-Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711-2548 512-463-2120 Email: cynthia.akatugba@oag.texas.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Defendant | ||
| State Commission on Judicial Conduct | represented by | Benjamin Lindberg Dower (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCynthia Oghenovo Akatugba (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Defendant | ||
| Lincoln Goodwin individually and in his official capacity as Harris County Justice Court Judge |
represented by | Armando Sung Chiu Harris County Attorney’s Office 1019 Congress, 15th Floor Houston, TX 77002 713-274-5345 Email: armando.chiu@cao.hctx.net TERMINATED: 02/23/2021 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDPatrick Edward Nagorski Harris County Attorney’s Office 1019 Congress St 15th Floor Houston, TX 77002 713-274-5239 Email: patrick.nagorski@cao.hctx.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Defendant | ||
| HARRIS COUNTY | represented by | Patrick Edward Nagorski (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDArmando Sung Chiu (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/02/2020 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Defendant | ||
| Tommy Ramsey Individually and in his Official Capacity as Assistant Harris County Attorney |
represented by | Armando Sung Chiu (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2021 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDPatrick Edward Nagorski (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Defendant | ||
| Does 1-100 | ||
| Defendant | ||
| TD Ameritrade, Inc. TERMINATED: 11/29/2019 |
represented by | John T Cox , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/29/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY |
| Defendant | ||
| Lashawn Williams Individually and in her Official Capacity as Harris County Civil Court at Law Judge |
represented by | Armando Sung Chiu (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2021 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDPatrick Edward Nagorski (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED |
| Date Filed | # | Docket Text |
|---|---|---|
| 08/26/2019 | 44 | REPLY in Support of 29 MOTION to Dismiss 20 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc. , filed by State Commission on Judicial Conduct, State of Texas. (Akatugba, Cynthia) (Entered: 08/26/2019) |
| 08/28/2019 | 45 | JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Kristen Jacobsen, TD Ameritrade, Inc., Shira Yoshor, filed.(Cox, John) (Entered: 08/28/2019) |
| 08/28/2019 | 46 | Corrected JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Kristen Jacobsen, TD Ameritrade, Inc., Shira Yoshor, filed.(Cox, John) (Entered: 08/28/2019) |
| 08/30/2019 | 47 | Corrected JOINT DISCOVERY/CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Kristen Jacobsen, TD Ameritrade, Inc., Shira Yoshor, filed.(Cox, John) (Entered: 08/30/2019) |
| 09/03/2019 | 48 | CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by TD Ameritrade, Inc., filed.(Cox, John) (Entered: 09/03/2019) |
| 09/04/2019 | 49 | CLARIFICATION OF PLAINTIFF’S (FIRST) AMENDED COMPLAINT; MOTION for Leave to File Amend Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint to Add Judge La Shawn Williams as Defendant by Randall E. Rollins, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/25/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(SarahShelby, 4) (Entered: 09/04/2019) |
| 09/04/2019 | 50 | RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION to 39 Corrected MOTION to Dismiss, 42 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Randall E. Rollins. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(SarahShelby, 4) (Entered: 09/04/2019) |
| 09/04/2019 | 51 | RESPONSE to 44 REPLY in Support of 29 MOTION to Dismiss, filed by Randall E. Rollins. (SarahShelby, 4) (Entered: 09/04/2019) |
| 09/04/2019 | 52 | MOTION for Leave to File SUPPLEMENT TO CORRECTED MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(6) by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Kristen Jacobsen, Shira Yoshor, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/25/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Proposed Order)(Cox, John) (Entered: 09/04/2019) |
| 09/04/2019 | 53 | MOTION for Leave to File SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(6) by TD Ameritrade, Inc., filed. Motion Docket Date 9/25/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Proposed Order)(Cox, John) (Entered: 09/04/2019) |
| 09/06/2019 | 54 | RESPONSE to 41 Notice (Other) , filed by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Kristen Jacobsen, Shira Yoshor. (Cox, John) (Entered: 09/06/2019) |
| 09/10/2019 | 55 | NOTICE of Resetting. Parties notified. Scheduling Conference set for 9/11/2019 at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 9C before Judge Andrew S Hanen, filed. (rhawkins) (Entered: 09/10/2019) |
| 09/10/2019 | 56 | NOTICE of attorney substitution by State Commission on Judicial Conduct, State of Texas, filed. (Akatugba, Cynthia) (Entered: 09/10/2019) |
| 09/10/2019 | 57 | NOTICE OF SERVICE of Mandatory Initial Discovery Responses by TD Ameritrade, Inc., filed. (Cox, John) (Entered: 09/10/2019) |
| 09/10/2019 | 58 | RESPONSE in Opposition to 52 MOTION for Leave to File SUPPLEMENT TO CORRECTED MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(6), 53 MOTION for Leave to File SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(6), filed by Randall E. Rollins. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(LoriPurifoy, 4) (Entered: 09/11/2019) |
| 09/11/2019 | 59 | SCHEDULING ORDER. ETT: 3 days. Jury. Pltf Expert Witness List due by 1/31/2020. Deft Expert Witness List due by 2/28/2020. Discovery due by 3/27/2020. Dispositive Motion Filing due by 1/31/2020. Non-Dispositive Motion Filing due by 4/3/2020. Joint Pretrial Order due by 4/10/2020. Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/27/2020 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 9C before Judge Andrew S Hanen Jury Trial set for 5/6/2020 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 9C before Judge Andrew S Hanen(Signed by Judge Andrew S Hanen) Parties notified.(rhawkins) (Entered: 09/11/2019) |
| 09/16/2019 | 60 | REPLY to 50 Response to Motion , filed by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Kristen Jacobsen, Shira Yoshor. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Cox, John) (Entered: 09/16/2019) |
| 09/16/2019 | 61 | REPLY to 50 Response to Motion , filed by TD Ameritrade, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Cox, John) (Entered: 09/16/2019) |
| 09/19/2019 | 62 | CLERKS NOTICE Regarding Exhibits. The offering party must take possession of the exhibits submitted into evidence by deadline. If the exhibits are not retrieved by the deadline, they will be destroyed. Exhibits may be picked up at the Office of the Clerk, 5th Floor, Federal Courthouse. Exhibit Destruction Deadline set for 10/4/2019, filed. (jdav, 4) (Entered: 09/19/2019) |
| 09/19/2019 | 63 | CLERKS NOTICE regarding exhibits. Parties notified., filed. (jdav, 4) (Entered: 09/19/2019) |
| 09/19/2019 | 64 | AFFIDAVIT of Prejudice Against a Judicial Officer Pursuant to 28 US Code § 144 by Randall E. Rollins, filed.(SarahShelby, 4) (Entered: 09/23/2019) |
| 09/27/2019 | 65 | RECUSAL ORDER. Judge Andrew S Hanen recused. Deadlines in scheduling orders subsist. Court settings are vacated.(Signed by Judge Andrew S Hanen) Parties notified.(jdav, 4) (Entered: 09/27/2019) |
| 09/27/2019 | 66 | NOTICE of Reassignment. Case reassigned to Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal. Judge Andrew S Hanen no longer assigned to the case. Parties notified, filed. (jdav, 4) (Entered: 09/27/2019) |
| 09/30/2019 | 67 | NOTICE of Reassignment. Case reassigned to Judge David Hittner. Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal no longer assigned to the case. Parties notified, filed. (leddins, 4) (Entered: 09/30/2019) |
| 10/01/2019 | 68 | SCHEDULING ORDER. Trial Term: September/October, 2020. ETT: 5 days. Jury Trial. Pltf Expert Witness List due by 1/31/2020. Deft Expert Witness List due by 2/28/2020. Discovery due by 3/27/2020. Dispositive Motion Filing due by 4/27/2020. Non-Dispositive Motion Filing due by 4/27/2020. Initial Disclosures due by 8/28/2020.(Signed by Judge David Hittner) Parties notified.(ealexander, 4) (Entered: 10/02/2019) |
| 10/15/2019 | 69 | CLERKS NOTICE of Destruction of Exhibits. The exhibits described on 62 Notice Regarding Exhibits, entered on 9/19/2019 have been destroyed, filed. (jdav, 4) (Entered: 10/15/2019) |
| 10/23/2019 | 70 | Agreed PROPOSED ORDER Dismissing Plaintiff’s Claims Against Defendants Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Kristen Jacobsen, Shira Yoshor, and TD Ameritrade, Inc. With Prejudice, filed.(Cox, John) (Entered: 10/23/2019) |
| 10/24/2019 | 71 | NOTICE of Reassignment to Judge Charles Eskridge, pursuant to Special Order No. 2019-4. Deadlines in scheduling orders remain in effect, and all court settings are vacated. Judge David Hittner no longer assigned to the case. Parties notified, filed. (NicoleDiaz, 4) (Entered: 10/24/2019) |
| 11/01/2019 | 72 |
MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings, MOTION to Void or Nullify Judge Hanen’s Orders (DE 16 and 37) for Want of En Personam Jurisdiction( Motion Docket Date 11/22/2019.) by Randall E. Rollins, filed. (LoriPurifoy, 4) (Entered: 11/05/2019) |
| 11/22/2019 | 73 | RESPONSE in Opposition to 72 MOTION for Judgment MOTION to Void or Nullify Judge Hanen’s Orders (DE 16 and 37) for Want of En Personam Jurisdiction, filed by State Commission on Judicial Conduct, State of Texas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Akatugba, Cynthia) (Entered: 11/22/2019) |
| 11/22/2019 | 74 | JOINDER in 73 Response in Opposition to Motion, , filed by HARRIS COUNTY. (Chiu, Armando) (Entered: 11/22/2019) |
| 11/29/2019 | 75 | ORDER re: 70 Agreed PROPOSED ORDER Dismissing Plaintiff’s Claims Against Defendants Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Kristen Jacobsen, Shira Yoshor, and TD Ameritrade, Inc. With Prejudice. TD Ameritrade, Inc., Shira Yoshor, Greenberg Traurig, LLP and Kristen Jacobsen terminated.(Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified.(jengonzalez, 4) (Entered: 12/02/2019) |
| 12/03/2019 | 76 | REPLY to 73 Response in Opposition to Motion,, filed by Randall E. Rollins. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(JenniferOlson, 4) (Entered: 12/05/2019) |
| 01/27/2020 | 77 |
Plaintiff’s Disclosure of Expert Witnesses and Request for Waiver of Expert Reports by Randall E. Rollins, filed.(EdnitaPonce, 1) (Entered: 01/29/2020) |
| 02/03/2020 | 78 | Unopposed MOTION to Stay Discovery by State Commission on Judicial Conduct, State of Texas, filed. Motion Docket Date 2/24/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order on State Ds’ Motion to Stay Discovery)(Akatugba, Cynthia) (Entered: 02/03/2020) |
| 02/04/2020 | 79 | CERTIFICATE of Conference re: 78 Unopposed MOTION to Stay Discovery by State Commission on Judicial Conduct, State of Texas, filed.(Akatugba, Cynthia) (Entered: 02/04/2020) |
| 02/04/2020 | 80 |
ORDER granting 78 Unopposed MOTION to Stay Discovery. All discovery and scheduling deadlines are stayed.(Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified.(jengonzalez, 4) (Entered: 02/04/2020) |
| 03/30/2020 | 81 | NOTICE of Change of Address by Randall E. Rollins, filed. (jengonzalez, 4) (Entered: 03/30/2020) |
| 05/28/2020 | 82 |
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying as moot 36 MOTION for Default Judgment against Lincoln Goodwin, Tommy Ramsey. Denying without prejudice 29 MOTION to Dismiss 20 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc. , 31 MOTION to Dismiss 20 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc. . Granting 49 MOTION for Leave to File Amend Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint to Add Judge La Shawn Williams as Defendant, 31 MOTION to Dismiss 20 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc. . Amended complaint due by 06/15/2020. (Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified.(jengonzalez, 4) (Entered: 05/28/2020) |
| 05/28/2020 | 83 |
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 72 MOTION for Judgment MOTION to Void or Nullify Judge Hanen’s Orders (DE 16 and 37) for Want of En Personam Jurisdiction. (Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified.(jengonzalez, 4) (Entered: 05/28/2020) |
| 06/08/2020 | 84 | AMENDED FOURTH PARTY COMPLAINT against Does 1-100, Lincoln Goodwin, HARRIS COUNTY, Tommy Ramsey, State Commission on Judicial Conduct, State of Texas, Lashawn Williams filed by Randall E. Rollins.(ckrus, 4) (Entered: 06/08/2020) |
| 06/11/2020 | 85 | Notice of and MOTION Serve Supplemental Pleadings by Randall E. Rollins, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/2/2020. (sguevara, 4) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/15/2020: # 1 Proposed Order) (sguevara, 4). (Entered: 06/15/2020) |
| 06/22/2020 | 86 | MOTION to Dismiss 84 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc. by State Commission on Judicial Conduct, State of Texas, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/13/2020. (Akatugba, Cynthia) (Entered: 06/22/2020) |
| 06/22/2020 | 87 | MOTION to Dismiss 84 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc. by HARRIS COUNTY, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/13/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Chiu, Armando) (Entered: 06/22/2020) |
| 06/22/2020 | 88 | MOTION to Dismiss 84 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc. by Lincoln Goodwin, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/13/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Proposed Order)(Chiu, Armando) (Entered: 06/22/2020) |
| 06/22/2020 | 89 | MOTION to Dismiss 84 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc. by Tommy Ramsey, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/13/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(Chiu, Armando) (Entered: 06/22/2020) |
| 06/22/2020 | 90 | Corrected PROPOSED ORDER re: 87 MOTION to Dismiss 84 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc. , filed.(Chiu, Armando) (Entered: 06/22/2020) |
| 06/25/2020 | 91 | AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of 84 Fourth Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc. by Randall E. Rollins, filed.(sguevara, 4) (Entered: 06/25/2020) |
| 06/26/2020 | 92 | NOTICE Amended Certificate of Service re: 86 MOTION to Dismiss 84 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc. by State Commission on Judicial Conduct, State of Texas, filed. (Akatugba, Cynthia) (Entered: 06/26/2020) |
| 07/06/2020 | 93 | RESPONSE in Opposition to 89 MOTION to Dismiss 84 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc. , filed by Randall E. Rollins. (BrendaLacy, 4) (Entered: 07/07/2020) |
| 07/06/2020 | 97 | RETURN of Service of SUMMONS Executed as to Lashawn Williams served on 7/15/2020, answer due 8/5/2020, RE: 84 filed.(JenniferOlson, 4) (Entered: 07/21/2020) |
| 07/07/2020 | 94 | MOTION to Dismiss 84 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc. by Lashawn Williams, filed. Motion Docket Date 7/28/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Chiu, Armando) (Entered: 07/07/2020) |
| 07/16/2020 | 95 | REPLY in Support of 86 MOTION to Dismiss 84 Amended Complaint/Counterclaim/Crossclaim etc. , filed by State Commission on Judicial Conduct, State of Texas. (Akatugba, Cynthia) (Entered: 07/16/2020) |
| 07/16/2020 | 96 | REPLY to 93 Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Fourth Amended Complaint, filed by Lincoln Goodwin, HARRIS COUNTY, Tommy Ramsey. (Chiu, Armando) (Entered: 07/16/2020) |
| 07/27/2020 | 98 | PLAINTIFF’S COLLECTIVE RESPONSE TO: DEFENDANTS’ STATE OF TEXAS, STATE COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT, HARRIS COUNTY, TOMMY RAMSEY AND JUDGE LINCOLN GOODWIN’S REPLIES TO PLAINTIFF’S COLLECTIVE RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Randall E. Rollins. (scastillo, 1) (Entered: 07/27/2020) |
| 10/02/2020 | 99 | NOTICE of attorney substitution by HARRIS COUNTY. Attorney Patrick Nagorski added. Attorney Armando Sung Chiu terminated, filed. (Nagorski, Patrick) (Entered: 10/02/2020) |
| 10/13/2020 | 100 | MOTION for Sanctions against Dfts Harris County and Patrick Nagorski Pursuant to FRCP 5(a)(1)(E) by Randall E. Rollins, filed. Motion Docket Date 11/3/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(sanderson, 4) (Entered: 10/15/2020) |
| 11/20/2020 | 101 | ORDER re: Counsel for Harris County is ordered to respond to the pending motion for sanctions by 12/04/2020. (Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified.(jengonzalez, 4) (Entered: 11/20/2020) |
| 11/24/2020 | 102 | RESPONSE in Opposition to 100 MOTION for Sanctions, filed by HARRIS COUNTY. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Nagorski, Patrick) (Entered: 11/24/2020) |
| 11/30/2020 | 103 | REPLY to 102 Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Randall E. Rollins. (JacquelineMata, 4) (Entered: 11/30/2020) |
| 02/23/2021 | 104 | NOTICE of attorney substitution by Lincoln Goodwin, Tommy Ramsey, Lashawn Williams. Attorney Armando Sung Chiu terminated, filed. (Nagorski, Patrick) (Entered: 02/23/2021) |
| 08/11/2021 | 105 |
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS.The motions to dismiss by Defendants Harris County, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the State of Texas, Judge Lincoln Goodwin, Judge LaShawn Williams, and Tommy Ramsey are GRANTED. Dkts 86, 87, 88, 89, 94. The claims by Plaintiff Randall E. Rollins are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Dkt 84. The motion for sanctions by Rollins is DENIED AS MOOT. Dkt 100. This is a FINAL JUDGMENT. Case terminated on 08/11/2021.(Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified.(jengonzalez, 4) (Entered: 08/11/2021) |
| 08/25/2021 | 106 | Plaintiff’s MOTION to Alter or Amend Judgment Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) by Randall E. Rollins, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/15/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Proposed Order)(jtabares, 1) (Entered: 08/30/2021) |
| 09/01/2021 | 107 | NOTICE OF APPEAL to US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit re: 105 Memorandum and Opinion, Terminate Case,by Randall E. Rollins, filed.(CynthiaBenavides, 3) (Entered: 09/03/2021) |
| 09/02/2021 | 108 | MOTION to Postpone Paying Notice of Appeal Filing Fee Until DE 106 Ruling OR in the Alternate, MOTION to Withdraw Notice of Appeal by Randall E. Rollins, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/23/2021. (CynthiaBenavides, 3) (Entered: 09/03/2021) |
| 09/03/2021 | 109 | ORDER denying 106 Motion to Alter Judgment. The motion by Plaintiff Randall E. Rollins for reconsideration of this Court’s prior opinion and order dismissing his claims is denied.(Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified.(jengonzalez, 4) (Entered: 09/03/2021) |
| 09/07/2021 | 110 | Clerks Notice of Filing of an Appeal. The following Notice of Appeal and related motions are pending in the District Court: 108 MOTION, 107 Notice of Appeal. Fee status: Not Paid. Reporter(s): F. Warner, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Appeal) (jtabares, 1) (Entered: 09/07/2021) |
| 09/13/2021 | 111 | DKT13 TRANSCRIPT ORDER REQUEST by Randall Rollins. Transcript is unnecessary for appeal purposes This order form relates to the following: 107 Notice of Appeal, filed.(MelissaMorgan, 4) (Entered: 09/14/2021) |
| 09/13/2021 | 112 | MOTION to Correct Docket by Randall E. Rollins, filed. Motion Docket Date 10/4/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-B)(EdnitaPonce, 1) (Entered: 09/15/2021) |
| 09/24/2021 | 113 | ORDER denying 112 Motion to Correct. The motion by Plaintiff Randall E. Rollins to correct the docket is DENIED. Dkt 112. The subject of concern has already been explained by prior order. See Dkt 109 at 2. This Court neednt further address its “court only” entries. See United States v Frauendorfer, 2007 WL 4208331 (D Neb).(Signed by Judge Charles Eskridge) Parties notified.(jengonzalez, 4) (Entered: 09/24/2021) |
| 10/01/2021 | 114 | Letter from Randall E. Rollins re: Corrected Caption, filed. (RachelSalazar, 4) (Entered: 10/04/2021) |
| PACER Service Center | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Transaction Receipt | |||
| 09/16/2022 15:17:56 |
Texas Rustlers: Corralling Calculated Legal Bandits and Villainous Practices by Courtroom Outlaws
Behind Closed Doors: The Coordinated Efforts of Legal Bandits and Complicit Courts to Deprive Homeowners of Their Rights and Property.
A Wild West Blunder: PHH’s Hired Bounty Hunters at Hopkins Law Deliver a Cockamamie Response
Gunsmoke and Legal Misfires: PHH’s Reply Misses the Mark. Hopkins Law’s Cockamamie Response Turns Legal Logic into High Noon Nonsense.
DHI Holdings Could Be Very Spartan, as the Company Faces Increased Scrutiny
LIT’s investigation reveals that Brandon Dutch Mendenhall and DHI Holdings LP are facing mounting financial obstacles.
