Crabtree v. Parish et al

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 21 Report and Recommendations, granting 7 Motion to Dismiss filed by Laurn Parish, 5 Motion to Dismiss filed by Billy Byrd, 14 Motion to Dismiss filed by William Porter, and denying as moot 4 Motion to Dismiss filed by Laurn Parish. The complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Any motion not previously ruled on is denied. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 8/12/15. (mjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
LLOYD H. CRABTREE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JUDGE LAUREN PARISH, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15-cv-00015

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Lloyd H. Crabtree initiated this civil action on January 12, 2015. The case was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love, who issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the case be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 21.)
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which contains his findings,
conclusions, and recommendation for the disposition of this action, has been presented for
consideration. Plaintiff has filed an objection to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 23),
as well as an additional letter regarding the bases for his allegations (Doc. No. 24).
In his objections, Plaintiff contends that the “Texas Parks and Wildlife Game Warden
Shawn Bailey” violated the Fourth Amendment when entering the property of “Lloyd A.
Crabtree.” (Doc. No. 23, at 1.) Plaintiff further claims the civil rights of “Charles Crabtree” were
violated when the government seized two guns and a cell phone. (Doc. No. 23, at 2.) In addition,
Plaintiff claims “Judge Parish violated the 8th amendment” when she set excessive bail for Lloyd
A. Crabtree and Todd Crabtree. (Doc No. 23, at 3.) Plaintiff further adds that “Judge Parish

1

violated the Crabtree’s 2nd and 14th Amendment rights,” that “Mr. Byrd violated Lloyd A.
Crabtree’s 5th Amendment rights,” and “Judge Porter violated Lloyd A. Crabtree’s right to a fair
trial…” (Doc. No. 23, at 4.) The Plaintiff’s letter submitted on August 3, 2015, sets forth what
appear to be amended claims for similar counts. For example, Nos. 2, 3, and 3[sic], all relate to
the search and seizure of Charles Crabtree’s guns and phone. (Doc. No. 24, at 1.)

The

remaining allegations all relate to violations of Lloyd A. Crabtree’s and Todd Crabtree’s
constitutional rights by Judge Parish, Mr. Byrd, and Judge Porter. (Doc. No. 24, at 1-2.)
While Plaintiff’s objections and letter invoke several constitutional bases for jurisdiction,
Plaintiff still alleges no injury-in-fact to himself, Lloyd H. Crabtree. Indeed, all of Plaintiff’s
allegations pertain to violations of the rights of others—Lloyd A. Crabtree, Todd Crabtree, and
Charles Crabtree. Thus, Plaintiff’s new allegations fail to cure the standing issue addressed in
the Report and Recommendation and the Court therefore agrees with the Magistrate Judge that
this Court lacks federal jurisdiction to hear this suit. Moreover, the Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction for the Plaintiff’s claims
regarding the setting of bail and motions made in state court during the criminal proceedings
under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Court also agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s findings
that the claims against Judges Parish and Porter for actions taken in their official judicial
capacity, such as setting bail and ruling on motions, entitle both judges to judicial immunity.
Similarly, the Court agrees that Mr. Byrd is entitled to immunity for Plaintiff’s claims based on
the motions he made while acting in his official capacity as a state prosecutor.
Therefore the Court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge
as the findings and conclusions of the Court. It is accordingly ORDERED that the complaint is

2

hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that any motion not
previously ruled on is DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 12th day of August, 2015.

____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3