United States of America v. Stacey et al
Filing
155
ORDER: The court rejects the 150 Report and denies as moot the Government's 125 Motion. (Ordered by Judge Sam A. Lindsay on 1/28/2025) (agc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN DEE STACEY, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 3:23-CV-00006-L-BT
ORDER
Before the court are the United States’ Motion for Show Cause Order to Determine whether
Defendant John Dee Stacey Should Be Held in Contempt of Court, and Supporting Brief
(“Motion”) (Doc. 125), filed on November 22, 2024, and The Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford (“Report”) (Doc.
150), filed on January 10, 2025, recommending that the court find Defendant John Dee Stacey
(“Defendant” or “Mr. Stacey”) in civil contempt of court and order him to pay a $500 sanction to
Receiver. For the reasons stated herein, the court rejects the Report and denies as moot the
Government’s Motion.
In the Motion, the Government contends that the court should hold Mr. Stacey in contempt
of court for disregarding the magistrate judge’s Order Granting Motion to Appoint Allie Beth
Allman as Receiver for Dallas County Real Property (“Receiver Order”) (Doc. 114). Doc. 125. It
argues that on November 22, 2024, the Government’s counsel was notified by Brenda Sandoz, the
Receiver’s assistant realtor, that Mr. Stacey had made threatening telephone calls and sent
disturbing text messages. Id. at 3. In these telephone calls and text messages, Mr. Stacey demanded
that the Receiver sell the Dallas County Property to Dyral Hargrove, Sr., the father of Dyral
Hargrove, Jr., the manager of the trailer park on the Dallas County Property. Id. Accordingly, the
Government contends that because Mr. Stacey’s “behavior reveals that he does not intend to
voluntarily comply with the [c]ourt’s Order by allowing the Receiver to sell the Dallas County
Property unimpeded,” the court should hold him in contempt. Id. at 6.
Magistrate Judge Rutherford determined the following:
First, a court order—the August 16 Order—was in effect. Second, it
required certain conduct by Mr. Stacey. Mr. Stacey was clearly prohibited from
interfering in any way with the Property, the Receiver’s efforts to sell the Property,
or any prospective purchaser. Third, Mr. Stacey’s conduct constitutes interference
in violation of the court order.
Report 10.
She further determined that “Mr. Stacey’s communications interfered with the Receiver’s
efforts to sell the Property, in that Ms. Sandoz incurred additional time and expense reviewing and
responding to purported offers that never came to fruition.” Id. As a result, the magistrate judge
recommended that the court find that Mr. Stacey violated the Receiver Order and should be held
in civil contempt for his violation. Id. at 12.
On January 17, 2025, the magistrate judge entered an order (Doc. 151) and directed the
Government to file notice of the closing of the Dallas County Property. The Government filed
United States’ Notice of Closing of Sale of Dallas County Real Property, Disbursement of Funds,
and Deposit Into Court Registry in Response to Order (Ecf No. 151) Entered 1/17/2025 (Doc.
152), which informed the court that Dallas County Property was sold and closed on January 14,
2025.
Civil contempt is appropriate to either bring a party into compliance with a court order or
to compensate the complaining party for losses sustained due to failure to comply. American
Airlines, Inc. v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 228 F.3d 574, 578 (5th Cir. 2000). While there was a violation
of the magistrate judge’s order prior to the sale of the Dallas County Property, the property has
since been sold; thus the court determines that a contempt order would serve no purpose because
there is no need to coerce a willing party. Id.
Accordingly, the court rejects the Report and denies as moot the Government’s Motion.
It is so ordered this 28th day of January 2025.
_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge
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?