Valentine v. Jagodzinski et al

Filing 23

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING Valentine's 2 Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis filed in consolidated case A-16-CV-919 and RECOMMENDING the District Court DISMISS all of the claims raised in consolidated case A-16-CV-919 for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Andrew W. Austin. (klw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DIVISION OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
RON VALENTINE,
V.
JEREMY JAGODZINSKI, et al.

§
§
§
§
§

A-16-CV-442-LY

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TO:

THE HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is the above-styled cause of action. The District Court referred this case

to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for all purposes on August 15, 2016, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and
Rule 1(c) of Appendix C of the Local Rules.
This case is the consolidation of two separate lawsuits filed by Ron Valentine. The first
action, No. A-16-CV-442-LY was the subject of a report and recommendation submitted by the
undersigned on August 1, 2016. Valentine had applied to proceed in forma pauperis, which the
undersigned granted.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the undersigned then conducted a

frivolousness review. In essence, Valentine wanted the court to review and reject the rulings of
certain Texas courts, and invalidate certain injunctions that had been imposed on Valentine.
Applying the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, caselaw prohibitions of collateral attacks, and the AntiInjunction Act, the undersigned found that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and on
August 1, 2016, recommended dismissal. Dkt. No. 10 at 5-8.
On the same day, Valentine filed a second suit against the same parties (plus one other, Judge
Margaret Mirabel, who was specially assigned to handle Valentine’s third request that Judge
Shepperd recuse himself from Valentine’s suits). Though they had not yet been served with the suit,

Jagodzinski and Greene apparently got notice of it, and on August 11, 2016, they filed a motion
asking that it be consolidated with the first suit. Judge Yeakel granted that motion on August 15,
2016. Dkt. No. 5 in A-16-CV-919.
As in the first case, Valentine has requested leave to proceed on the claims raised in the
second case without the payment of costs. No. A-16-CV-919-LY, Dkt. No. 2. Given that the Court
already granted Valentine IFP status in the first case, it will GRANT the request as to the claims
raised in the second case, now consolidated into this suit.
Because it has granted Valentine leave to proceed IFP, the Court must review the claims
raised in his second suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). In his complaint, Valentine repeats the
very same arguments he made in his Motion for Emergency Relief filed in the first case. Compare
Dkt. No. 1 in A-16-CV-919-LY, with Dkt. No. 9 in A-16-CV-442-LY. The relief he seeks is the
same he sought in the first case: an order overturning the rulings of Texas courts and invalidating
injunctions placed upon Valentine. Given that the claims duplicate those the undersigned already
addressed in the Report & Recommendation submitted in the original case, the Court will not repeat
here the reasons why the claims are outside of this Court’s jurisdiction. The proper result is clear:
for the reasons set out in the prior report and recommendation, the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the claims raised in the complaint originally filed in A-16-CV-919, and those claims
should be dismissed for the reasons set forth in the earlier report and recommendation.
I. ORDERS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Court hereby GRANTS the Application to Proceed In Forma Paurperis filed as Dkt. No.
2 in A-16-CV-919. Service upon Defendants should be withheld pending the District Court’s review
of the recommendations made in this report. The undersigned FURTHER RECOMMENDS that,
2

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the District Court DISMISS all of the claims raised in A-16CV-919 and now consolidated into this case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
II. WARNINGS
The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing
objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are
being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See
Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).1
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations
contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after the party is served with a copy of the Report
shall bar that party from de novo review by the District Court of the proposed findings and
recommendations in the Report and, except upon grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from
appellate review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the
District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-153 (1985);
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-1429 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
SIGNED this 31st day of August, 2016.

_____________________________________
ANDREW W. AUSTIN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

In the earlier suit, prior to consolidation, Jagodzinski and Greene filed a motion for sanctions
and a request that Valentine be designated a vexatious litigant so that his right to file suits against
them be curtailed. Dkt. No. 3. The Court had set a hearing on that motion after issuing the earlier
R&R, but cancelled it after the two suits were consolidated. It is the undersigned’s intention to take
up that motion and set a new date for a hearing once the district court addresses this and the prior
recommendations.
3