Brown et al v. Texas Board of Nursing et al

Filing 17

Order granting 15 Motion to Extend Time to File Objections. Objections are overruled and and the Court Accepts Findings and Recommendations 10 of the U.S. Magistrate re: 3 Complaint filed by Basil Brown, Yvonne Brown. (Ordered by Judge Jorge A Solis on 6/26/2013) (chmb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
YVONNE BROWN, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
V.
TEXAS BOARD OF NURSING, ET AL.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

No. 3:13-cv-1004-P

ORDER
Plaintiffs seek leave to file their objections to the findings, conclusions, and
recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge approximately 40 minutes late
due to inclement weather. The Court finds that good cause has been shown and the
motion [Dkt. No. 15] is GRANTED.
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and
recommendations in this case. Plaintiff filed objections, and the District Court has
made a de novo review of those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation to which objection was made. The objections are overruled, and the
Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of the United States
Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs’ complaint is therefore summarily dismissed as malicious
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
Plaintiffs appear to allege that the Magistrate Judge incorrectly determined that
the claims made by Plaintiffs are “the same or similar” to those made twice before in
the Northern District. They contend that they only became aware of much of

Defendants’ wrongdoing when they received the administrative record of the
disciplinary proceeding in March 2003 and therefore raise many allegations for the
first time in this lawsuit. Whether or not Plaintiffs made these exact claims in their
two prior federal cases or prior state litigation against the same parties, they still arise
from a common nucleus of operative fact. As the Court explained in one of Plaintiffs’
prior cases, “complaints filed in forma pauperis may be dismissed as malicious when
they seek to relitigate claims premised upon substantially the same facts arising from
a common series of events upon which the plaintiff has relied in a previous lawsuit.”
Brown v. Thomas, No. 3:02-CV-673-M, 2002 WL 31757616 at *3 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 3,
2002) (citing cases). There is no doubt that the claims in this lawsuit arise from the
same decision of the Texas Board of Nurse Examiners that Plaintiffs challenged in two
prior federal cases. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge correctly found that the lawsuit
is subject to dismissal as malicious, and Plaintiffs’ objection is overruled.
Plaintiffs also object to the Magistrate Judge’s suggestions that the 1999
proceeding was a “disciplinary hearing,” that the Plaintiffs have been deemed
vexatious litigants in Texas courts, and that Plaintiffs’ underlying claims are without
merit. The documents provided by Plaintiffs indicate that the December 9, 1999
hearing was an administrative disciplinary hearing at which a default judgment was
issued. The Travis County, Texas district court did indeed deem both Plaintiffs as
vexatious litigants. See Brown v. Texas State Board of Nurse Examiners, No. 03-0500508-CR, 2007 WL 3034321, at *1 (Tex. App. – Austin, Oct. 18, 2007). The Court does
not believe that the Magistrate Judge referred to Plaintiffs’ claims for relief as “not
-2-

plausible” or otherwise meritless. Instead, Judge Horan concluded that this action is
malicious because it arises from the same events that were the basis of two prior
federal lawsuits. In any case, none of these objections undermine Judge Horan’s
conclusion that Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is barred as duplicative. Accordingly, they are
overruled.
The Magistrate Judge is correct to observe that, “[i]t is well past time that
Plaintiffs should have ceased filing these repetitious and uniformly frivolous lawsuits
before the Court.” See Dkt. No. 10 at 5. Plaintiffs are warned that any future lawsuits
seeking damages or equitable relief arising from the revocation of Yvonne Brown’s
nursing license may result in the imposition of sanctions. Such sanctions may include
a monetary fine, and an order barring Plaintiffs from filing any civil actions in federal
court without paying the required filing fee or obtaining prior authorization from a
district judge or magistrate judge.

SO ORDERED this 26th day of June, 2013

_________________________________
JORGE A. SOLIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-