Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Parris v. Parris

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division

November 9, 2017

HILDA PARRIS
v.
JASON PARRIS

          Nowak, Judge.

          MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          AMOS L. MAZZANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On September 19, 2017, the report of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. #12) was entered containing proposed findings of fact and recommendations that Plaintiff Hilda Parris's Motion to Remand (Dkt. #11) be granted and this cause be remanded to the 211th Judicial District Court, Denton County, Texas. Having received the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, having considered Defendant's objections (Dkt. #19), and having conducted a de novo review, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the Magistrate Judge's report as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

         RELEVANT BACKGROUND

         On July 29, 2014, Plaintiff Hilda Parris filed a divorce with children action in the 211th Judicial District Court, Denton County, Texas (“State Court”) (Dkt. #1, Exhibit A). On October 29, 2015, the State Court entered a Final Decree of Divorce and an Order Withholding from Earnings for Child Support (Dkt. #1, Exhibit A). On January 11, 2016, Defendant Jason Parris filed a Motion to Enter a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) (Dkt. #1, Exhibit A). On March 3, 2016, the State Court canceled the hearing on the Motion to Enter QDRO and ordered the file sent to Records Management for storage (Dkt. #1, Exhibit A). Thereafter, on or about June 20, 2017, Defendant received a notice letter from the Office of the Attorney General regarding his alleged nonpayment of child support (Dkt. #1, Exhibit B), as well as a Notice of Levy (Dkt. #1, Exhibit C). On July 19, 2017, Defendant purported to remove the divorce action and issue of support payments to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, asserting federal jurisdiction under “28 U.S.C. §§ 1443 and 1446(b), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 1367” (Dkt. #1 at p. 1). Although Defendant labeled himself as “Petitioner” in the caption of his Notice of Removal, the Court found that Defendant sought removal of the State Court proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (Dkts. #1 at p. 4; #12 at p. 2) (“this is a removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443”).

         On September 19, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered a report and recommendation (Dkt. #12) recommending that Plaintiff's Motion to Remand be granted and this case be remanded to the 211th Judicial District Court, Denton County, Texas. Defendant filed his “Objections to Unauthorized Magistrate Report and Recommendations with Conditional Request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” (Dkt. #19) on October 10, 2017.

         DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS

         A party who files timely written objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation is entitled to a de novo review of those findings or recommendations to which the party specifically objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2)-(3). In his forty-eight page Objections, Defendant lodges multiple complaints, many of which are repetitive.

         As an initial matter, Defendant argues the report and recommendation “is NOT amongst the available types of dispositive actions that federal magistrate judges may ever address without the consent of the parties.” (Dkt. #19 at p. 2) (emphasis in original). But the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636, permits “a [full Article III] judge [to] designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except [certain dispositive motions]” and further permits a judge [to] designate a magistrate judge to . . . submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition, by a judge of the court, of any [of those excepted] motion[s] . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)-(B). The Court's Local Rules also provide district judges wide latitude in referring matters and motions for a magistrate judge's review. E.D. Tex. Local Civil Rule 72(d). A magistrate judge may, therefore, recommend disposition of a motion to remand to the district judge, who will then conduct a de novo review of those portions of the recommendation to which parties raise specific, timely objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Fifth Circuit has repeatedly recognized the statutory authority to designate a magistrate judge to consider a motion to remand. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Here, the Magistrate Judge recommended Plaintiff's Motion to Remand be granted. The Magistrate Judge acted within the bounds of statutory authority in issuing such report and recommendation, and the Court now properly reviews those portions of the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation to which Defendant raises specific objections.[1]

         Defendant also makes the following arguments in his objections:

• “The State of Texas must surpass pre-deprivation ‘serious parental unfitness' due process hurdles, and that by clear and convincing evidence, before it may then, and only then, remove the custodial rights of any parent to his or her own natural child” (Dkt. #19 at p. 7). As a summary of this argument, Defendant asserts “the State of Texas family court system is wildly unconstitutional, perpetrating routine, daily frauds upon basic constitutional and due process rights of at least one-half of all the natural parents involved within domestic relations cases over child custody betwixt two competing parents, and it is incumbent on this Court to strike down the same facially repugnant mess.” (Dkt. #19 at pp. 11-12).
• “State family court judges are barred from any involvement in Title IV-D child support matters of their own given respective counties due to the pecuniary conflicts of interests to such county officers within the Title IV-D system” (Dkt. #19 at p. 12). Defendant requests the Court “strike down the same facially repugnant mess by declaring an appropriate injunction against the State of Texas, its family court system leaders, and/or the corresponding judicial officers, forbidding such further conflicts of interest and/or other entanglements, and making the same permanent.” (Dkt. #19 at pp. 14-15).
• “Causes of action over federal torts are well established as perfectly proper federal subject matter jurisdiction even if regarding state domestic relations cases” (Dkt. #19 at p. 15). According to Defendant, he is within his rights to bring a federal court tort action for civil damages “over the original several years of interference with the parenting time I was supposed to have equally with my offspring, because such federal tort actions have been very well established for decades” (Dkt. #19 at p. 18) (emphasis in original). Defendant argues “[a]ny frivolous attempt by any officer or party herein to willfully, intentionally and knowingly defraud this District Court into avoiding jurisdiction over federal tort claims brought by this Petitioner (let alone over the removal action and direct facial challenge to state statutes itself), simply because the issues are intertwined with a state domestic relations case, are abhorrently not in compliance with well-established federal jurisprudence . . . .” (Dkt. #19 at p. 18).
• “Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 is timely filed within thirty days of the aggrieved litigant first ascertaining the existence of his or her right ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.