Carter v. Livingston et al
Filing
155
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING SEVERANCE. Plaintiff's claim against defendants Linda Martin and Brandi Glosson are SEVERED from this action and shall proceed as a separate civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 3/3/21. (ljw, )
Case 9:17-cv-00040-RC-ZJH Document 155 Filed 03/03/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 7839
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
FREDERICK CARTER
§
VS.
§
BRAD LIVINGSTON, et al.,
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:17-CV-40
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
REGARDING SEVERANCE
On August 19, 2020, the Magistrate Judge entered a Show Cause Order, ordering defendant
Glosson to show cause as to why a default judgment should not be entered against her and ordering
defendant Martin to show cause as to why a dispositive motion, a motion for extension of time or
other correspondence has not been filed to date. The Order was sent to both defendants certified
mail return receipt. Linda Martin received the Order on August 31, 2020. The copy of the Order
sent to Brandi Glosson was returned as unable to forward. Neither defendant has filed a response
to the Order to date.
On this same day, the court entered two Memorandum Opinions and Orders Adopting the
Reports and Recommendations entered January 20, 2021, dismissing plaintiff’s claims against
defendants Henry, Nguyen, Jackson, Moore and Stalinsky. This court previously dismissed
plaintiff’s claims against defendants Livingston, Harris and Martinez. See Orders Adopting Report
and Recommendation (docket entry nos. 97 & 114).1 As such, the only remaining defendants in this
case are defendants Martin and Glosson. As plaintiff’s claims against defendants Martin and
Glosson are distinctly separate claims from those concerning defendants Henry, Nguyen, Jackson,
Moore, Stalinksy, Livingston, Harris and Martinez, and, in order to avoid the possible injustice of
delaying judgment against the latter defendants, the court believes that severance of the claims
against defendants Martin and Glosson and the entry of Final Judgment in the above-referenced case
1
Plaintiff also sued several non-jural entities. Those claims were dismissed on September 16, 2019 (docket
entry nos. 89 & 90).
Case 9:17-cv-00040-RC-ZJH Document 155 Filed 03/03/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 7840
against the remaining defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) is appropriate.2
See Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp., et al., 574 U.S. 405, 409 (2015); Meadaa v. K.A.P.
Enterprises, L.L.C., 756 F.3d 875, 87-80 (5th Cir. 2014). The court expressly finds there is no just
reason for delay. It is, therefore,
ORDERED that plaintiff’s claim against defendants Linda Martin and Brandi Glosson are
SEVERED from this action and shall proceed as a separate civil rights action filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The Clerk of Court is instructed to file the following docket entries into the new civil
rights action: 1, 2, 9-10, 16, 23, 34-37, 43-44, 49-50, 55-59, 64-66, 70, 75, 91-92, 98-99, 103, 110,
131, 134-135, 137 and Staff Notes dated May 28, 2020, August 20, 2020, and August 31, 2020. The
resulting case should be assigned in the regular practice for allotment of newly-filed civil actions.
So ORDERED and SIGNED, Mar 03, 2021.
____________________
Ron Clark
Senior Judge
2
The COVID-19 pandemic has created uncertainty with respect to the timeline for disposition of various cases.
That issue, compounded with two defendants failing to respond to the Magistrate Judge’s Show Cause Order, necessitates
the severance in this case and entry of Final Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?