Federal Judges

Pro Se Randall Rollins Allowed to Amend his Federal Complaint Four Times in SDTX, Houston Div’n

Judge Eskridge: Rollins has filed four complaints in federal court. Even so, he fails to state claims that can survive jurisdictional attack.

Rollins v. State, No. 21-20482 (Unpublished Opinion)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* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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
Court of Appeals Docket #: 21-20482 Docketed: 09/14/2021
Termed: 08/29/2022
Nature of Suit: 3470 RICO
Rollins v. State of Texas
Appeal From: Southern District of Texas, Houston
Fee Status: Fee Paid
Case Type Information:
     1) Private Civil Federal
     2) Private
     3)
Originating Court Information:
     District: 0541-4 : 4:19-CV-1514
     Originating Judge: Charles Robert Eskridge, III, U.S. District Judge
     Date Filed: 04/24/2019
     Date NOA Filed:      Date Rec’d COA:
     09/01/2021      09/03/2021
Prior Cases:
     None
Current Cases:
     None
Panel Assignment:      Not available

 

Randall E. Rollins
Plaintiff – Appellant
Randall E. Rollins
Direct: 713-817-7088
Email: rerollins2000@yahoo.com
[NTC Pro Se]
#10
4808 Fairmont Parkway
Pasadena, TX 77505
v.
State of Texas
Defendant – Appellee
Cynthia O. Akatugba
Direct: 512-463-2120
[COR LD NTC Government]
Office of the Attorney General
General Litigation Division
P.O. Box 12548 (MC-019)
Austin, TX 78711-2548Benjamin Lindberg Dower
Direct: 512-463-2080
Email: benjamin.dower@oag.texas.gov
[COR NTC Government]
Office of the Attorney General
for the State of Texas
300 W. 15th Street
William P. Clements Building
Austin, TX 78701
State Commission on Judicial Conduct
Defendant – Appellee
Cynthia O. Akatugba
Direct: 512-463-2120
[COR LD NTC Government]
(see above)Benjamin Lindberg Dower
Direct: 512-463-2080
[COR NTC Government]
(see above)
Lincoln Goodwin, Justice Court Judge
Defendant – Appellee
Stanley Michael Clark
Direct: 713-755-5117
Email: stan.clark@harriscountytx.gov
[COR LD NTC Government]
County Attorney’s Office
for the County of Harris
15th Floor
1019 Congress Street
Houston, TX 77002Armando Sung Chiu
Direct: 713-274-5345
Email: armando.chiu@cao.hctx.net
[NTC Government]
County Attorney’s Office
for the County of Harris
1019 Congress Street
Houston, TX 77002Patrick Edward Nagorski
Direct: 346-354-7508
Email: patrick.nagorski@cao.hctx.net
[NTC Government]
County Attorney’s Office
for the County of Harris
15th Floor
1019 Congress Street
Houston, TX 77002
Harris County
Defendant – Appellee
Stanley Michael Clark
Direct: 713-755-5117
[COR LD NTC Government]
(see above)Armando Sung Chiu
Direct: 713-274-5345
[NTC Government]
(see above)Patrick Edward Nagorski
Direct: 346-354-7508
[NTC Government]
(see above)
Tommy Ramsey, Individually and in his official capacity as Assistant Harris County Attorney
Defendant – Appellee
Stanley Michael Clark
Direct: 713-755-5117
[COR LD NTC Government]
(see above)Armando Sung Chiu
Direct: 713-274-5345
[NTC Government]
(see above)Patrick Edward Nagorski
Direct: 346-354-7508
[NTC Government]
(see above)
LaShawn Williams, Individually and in her Official Capacity as Harris County Civil Court at Law Judge
Defendant – Appellee
Stanley Michael Clark
Direct: 713-755-5117
[COR LD NTC Government]
(see above)Armando Sung Chiu
Direct: 713-274-5345
[NTC Government]
(see above)Patrick Edward Nagorski
Direct: 346-354-7508
[NTC Government]
(see above)

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

09/14/2021  Open Document
2 pg, 110.18 KB
PRIVATE CIVIL FEDERAL CASE docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Mr. Randall E. Rollins [21-20482] (CCR) [Entered: 09/14/2021 02:26 PM]
09/16/2021  Open Document
4 pg, 128.34 KB
INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete. Action: Case OK to Process. [9666639-2] Initial AA Check Due satisfied.. Transcript order due on 10/01/2021 for Appellant Randall E. Rollins [21-20482] (CCR) [Entered: 09/16/2021 04:39 PM]
09/21/2021 TRANSCRIPT ORDER received from Appellant Mr. Randall E. Rollins advising transcript unnecessary for appeal purposes. Transcript Order ddl satisfied [21-20482] (CCR) [Entered: 09/21/2021 03:55 PM]
09/21/2021 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED from District Court for 4:19-CV-1514. Electronic ROA due on 10/06/2021. [21-20482] (CCR) [Entered: 09/21/2021 03:56 PM]
09/24/2021 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL FILED. Admitted Exhibits on File in District Court? No. Video/Audio Exhibits on File in District Court? No Electronic ROA deadline satisfied. [21-20482] (MRW) [Entered: 09/24/2021 10:32 AM]
09/24/2021  Open Document
4 pg, 134.53 KB
BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED A/Pet’s Brief Due on 11/03/2021 for Appellant Randall E. Rollins. [21-20482] (MRW) [Entered: 09/24/2021 10:33 AM]
09/28/2021  Open Document
1 pg, 62.81 KB
APPEARANCE FORM received from Ms. Cynthia O. Akatugba for State Commission on Judicial Conduct and State of Texas for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [21-20482] (Cynthia O. Akatugba ) [Entered: 09/28/2021 09:49 AM]
09/29/2021 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Cynthia O. Akatugba for Appellee State Commission on Judicial Conduct in 21-20482, Attorney Cynthia O. Akatugba for Appellee State of Texas in 21-20482 [21-20482] (CCR) [Entered: 09/29/2021 02:06 PM]
10/04/2021  Open Document
3 pg, 106.26 KB
CASE CAPTION updated. Party information modified for. Update: DC corrected party entry text on their docket sheet. [21-20482] (CCR) [Entered: 10/04/2021 09:55 AM]
10/11/2021  Open Document
3 pg, 104.5 KB
CASE CAPTION updated. Party information modified for Tommy Ramsey in 21-20482. Update: per request of appellant and 4th amended complaint. [21-20482] (CAG) [Entered: 10/11/2021 08:57 AM]
10/18/2021  Open Document
50 pg, 30.46 MB
APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED by Mr. Randall E. Rollins. # of Copies Provided: 0
A/Pet’s Brief deadline satisfied. Appellee’s Brief due on 11/17/2021 for Appellees Lincoln Goodwin, Harris County, Tommy Ramsey, State Commission on Judicial Conduct and State of Texas [21-20482] (CCR) [Entered: 10/19/2021 11:32 AM]
10/19/2021  Open Document
47 pg, 30.01 MB
SUFFICIENT RECORD EXCERPTS FILED by Appellant Mr. Randall E. Rollins. Document was marked insufficient in error; certificate of service on brief indicates service of brief and record excerpts. Certificate of Service has been added to Record Excerpts. Record Excerpts NOT Sufficient as they require a certificate of service. Instructions to Attorney: PLEASE READ THE ATTACHED NOTICE FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO REMEDY THE DEFAULT. # of Copies Provided: 0 Sufficient Record Excerpts due on 11/02/2021 for Appellant Randall E. Rollins [21-20482] (CCR) [Entered: 10/19/2021 11:38 AM]
10/20/2021 PROPOSED SUFFICIENT RECORD EXCERPTS filed by Appellant Mr. Randall E. Rollins in 21-20482 [9692010-2] Record Excerpts have been deemed sufficient. Sufficient Record Excerpts deadline satisfied [21-20482] (RLL) [Entered: 10/20/2021 09:31 AM]
11/12/2021  Open Document
1 pg, 458.69 KB
APPEARANCE FORM for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [21-20482] (Stanley Michael Clark ) [Entered: 11/12/2021 02:06 PM]
11/15/2021 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Stanley Michael Clark for party(s) Appellee Harris County, in case 21-20482 [21-20482] (DMS) [Entered: 11/15/2021 02:30 PM]
11/17/2021  Open Document
1 pg, 147.2 KB
APPEARANCE FORM for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? No. [21-20482] (Benjamin Lindberg Dower ) [Entered: 11/17/2021 03:40 PM]
11/17/2021  Open Document
42 pg, 458.21 KB
SUFFICIENT APPELLEE’S BRIEF FILED # of Copies Provided: 0 Sufficient Brief deadline satisfied [21-20482] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLEE’S BRIEF FILED Additionally the Brief requires a signature after the certificate of interested parties. Instructions to Attorney: PLEASE READ THE ATTACHED NOTICE FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO REMEDY THE DEFAULT. # of Copies Provided: 0 E/Res’s Brief deadline satisfied. Reply Brief due on 12/08/2021 for Appellant Randall E. Rollins [21-20482] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLEE’S BRIEF FILED by Harris County, Mr. Tommy Ramsey, and Ms. LaShawn Williams. Date of service: 11/17/2021 via email – Attorney for Appellees: Akatugba, Clark, Dower, Nagorski; US mail – Attorney for Appellee: Chiu; Appellant Rollins [21-20482] (Stanley Michael Clark ) [Entered: 11/17/2021 04:50 PM]
11/17/2021  Open Document
30 pg, 476.59 KB
APPELLEE’S BRIEF FILED # of Copies Provided: 0 E/Res’s Brief deadline satisfied [21-20482]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLEE’S BRIEF FILED by State Commission on Judicial Conduct and State of Texas. Date of service: 11/17/2021 via email – Attorney for Appellees: Akatugba, Chiu, Clark, Dower, Nagorski; Appellant Rollins; US mail – Attorney for Appellees: Chiu, Clark, Dower, Nagorski; Appellant Rollins [21-20482] (Cynthia O. Akatugba ) [Entered: 11/17/2021 05:31 PM]
11/18/2021 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Benjamin Lindberg Dower for Appellee State Commission on Judicial Conduct in 21-20482, Attorney Benjamin Lindberg Dower for Appellee State of Texas in 21-20482 [21-20482] (ABT) [Entered: 11/18/2021 10:12 AM]
11/22/2021  Open Document
41 pg, 454.03 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the proposed sufficient brief received from Appellees Mr. Lincoln Goodwin, Harris County, Mr. Tommy Ramsey and Ms. LaShawn Williams because the incorrect filing event was used. See correspondence of 11/17/2021 as to how to properly file. [21-20482] (CCR) [Entered: 11/22/2021 10:25 AM]
11/22/2021 Sufficient Brief deadline updated to 12/01/2021 for Appellees Lincoln Goodwin, Harris County, Tommy Ramsey and LaShawn Williams [21-20482] (CCR) [Entered: 11/22/2021 10:40 AM]
11/22/2021  Open Restricted Document
0 pg, 0 KB
PROPOSED SUFFICIENT BRIEF filed by Appellee Harris County [9714825-2] Date of service: 11/22/2021 via email – Attorney for Appellees: Akatugba, Clark, Dower, Nagorski; US mail – Attorney for Appellee: Chiu; Appellant Rollins [21-20482] (Stanley Michael Clark ) [Entered: 11/22/2021 11:05 AM]
12/03/2021  Open Document
16 pg, 7.54 MB
SUFFICIENT APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF FILED # of Copies Provided: 0
Sufficient Brief deadline satisfied [21-20482]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF FILED Brief NOT Sufficient as it requires a corrected cover page, a certificate of interested persons, a table of contents, a table of authorities, a summary of the argument, a clearly labeled argument and a certificate of compliance.. Instructions to Attorney: PLEASE READ THE ATTACHED NOTICE FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO REMEDY THE DEFAULT. # of Copies Provided: 0 Reply Brief deadline satisfied. Sufficient Brief due on 12/17/2021 for Appellant Randall E. Rollins. [21-20482] (CCR) [Entered: 12/06/2021 10:45 AM]
03/21/2022  Open Document
30 pg, 6.74 MB
MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. Randall E. Rollins for judicial notice [9803776-2]. Date of service: 03/21/2022 [21-20482] (CCR) [Entered: 03/22/2022 11:42 AM]
03/21/2022  Open Document
16 pg, 8.49 MB
MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. Randall E. Rollins for judicial notice [9804519-2]. Date of service: 03/21/2022 [21-20482] (CCR) [Entered: 03/23/2022 09:20 AM]
05/24/2022  Open Document
2 pg, 89.05 KB
PAPER COPIES REQUESTED for the Appellant Brief filed by Appellant Mr. Randall E. Rollins in 21-20482 [9691999-2], Record Excerpts filed by Appellant Mr. Randall E. Rollins in 21-20482 [9692010-2], Appellee Brief filed by Appellee Harris County in 21-20482 [9714825-2], Appellee Brief filed by Appellees State Commission on Judicial Conduct and State of Texas in 21-20482 [9714843-2], Appellant Reply Brief [9726752-2]. Paper Copies of Brief due on 05/31/2022 for Appellees Lincoln Goodwin, Harris County, Tommy Ramsey, State Commission on Judicial Conduct, State of Texas and LaShawn Williams and Appellant Randall E. Rollins.. Paper Copies of Record Excerpts due on 05/31/2022 for Appellant Randall E. Rollins. [21-20482] (CCR) [Entered: 05/24/2022 01:11 PM]
05/24/2022  Open Document
1 pg, 318.04 KB
APPEARANCE FORM received from Mr. Stanley Michael Clark for Harris County for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [21-20482] (Stanley Michael Clark ) [Entered: 05/24/2022 02:57 PM]
05/25/2022 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Stanley Michael Clark for party(s) Appellee Lincoln Goodwin, in case 21-20482 [21-20482] (CCR) [Entered: 05/25/2022 01:38 PM]
05/26/2022 Paper copies of Appellant Brief filed by Appellant Mr. Randall E. Rollins in 21-20482 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. [21-20482] (CCR) [Entered: 05/26/2022 04:44 PM]
05/26/2022 Paper copies of Record Excerpts filed by Appellant Mr. Randall E. Rollins in 21-20482 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 4. Paper Copies of Record Excerpts due deadline satisfied. [21-20482] (CCR) [Entered: 05/26/2022 04:48 PM]
05/26/2022 Paper copies of Appellant Reply Brief received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [21-20482] (CCR) [Entered: 05/26/2022 04:57 PM]
05/31/2022 Paper copies of Appellee Brief filed by Appellee Harris County in 21-20482 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes. # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [21-20482] (RLL) [Entered: 06/01/2022 07:26 AM]
05/31/2022 Paper copies of Appellee Brief filed by Appellees State Commission on Judicial Conduct and State of Texas in 21-20482 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [21-20482] (CMB) [Entered: 06/01/2022 09:40 AM]
06/10/2022  Open Document
1 pg, 316.15 KB
APPEARANCE FORM received from Mr. Stanley Michael Clark for Mr. Lincoln Goodwin and Harris County for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [21-20482] (Stanley Michael Clark ) [Entered: 06/10/2022 02:40 PM]
06/10/2022 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Stanley Michael Clark for party(s) Appellee LaShawn Williams Appellee Tommy Ramsey, in case 21-20482 [21-20482] (CCR) [Entered: 06/10/2022 03:46 PM]
06/14/2022  Open Restricted Document
0 pg, 0 KB
DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the appearance form received from Appellees Mr. Tommy Ramsey and Ms. LaShawn Williams in light of appearance form being a duplicate for attorney Stanley Clark [21-20482] (CCR) [Entered: 06/14/2022 09:13 AM]
08/29/2022  Open Document
4 pg, 180.48 KB
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [21-20482 Affirmed ] Judge: EHJ , Judge: JCH , Judge: CTW Mandate issue date is 09/20/2022 [21-20482] (CCR) [Entered: 08/29/2022 03:33 PM]
08/29/2022  Open Document
2 pg, 61.61 KB
JUDGMENT ENTERED AND FILED. Costs Taxed Against: Appellant. [21-20482] (CCR) [Entered: 08/29/2022 03:35 PM]
09/09/2022  Open Document
30 pg, 16.84 MB
PETITION filed by Appellant Mr. Randall E. Rollins for rehearing en banc [9936621-2] Mandate issue date canceled.. Date of Service: 09/08/2022 [21-20482] (CCR) [Entered: 09/09/2022 03:18 PM]
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.

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);

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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).

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.

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

Case in other court:  Justice Court – Precinct 2, Place 2, 192200133353

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

Scott Case Study: Select Portfolio Servicing Inc.’s Unique Bond with Protected Illegal Texas Theft Ring

LIT analyzed how many foreclosure cases in Texas Federal Court with Select Portfolio Servicing Inc as the Plaintiff, not Defendant since 2022.

Flores Case Study: Select Portfolio Servicing Inc.’s Unique Bond With Mackie Wolf Zientz Mann in Texas

LIT analyzed how many foreclosure cases in Texas Federal Court with Select Portfolio Servicing Inc as the Plaintiff, not Defendant since 2022.

Pro Se Charles Mosely Has Never Been Foreclosed and Never Had a TRO or Injunction in Harris County

Do you require a TRO or injunction to prevent foreclosure in Texas? No. LIT has hundreds if not thousands of cases where no injunction needed

Pro Se Randall Rollins Allowed to Amend his Federal Complaint Four Times in SDTX, Houston Div’n
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top