United States District Court, S.D. Texas
OPINION ON DISMISSAL
N. Hughes United States District Judge.
nucleus of this case is a protective order issued against
David Lancaster in September 2009. The applicant was Barbara
Lancaster, David's then wife. Lancaster says that this
order was obtained through fraud and conspiracy, and he has
sued eleven named defendants and three blind categories of
people. Lancaster bas failed to timely state a justiciable
claim; he will take nothing.
and Barbara Lancaster divorced in 2012. In May 2009, Barbara
accused David of domestic assault and he was charged with
assaul; of a family member, a Class A misdemeanor. In June,
the case was dismissed because Barbara refused to testify. On
July 17, 2009, Barbara filed an affidavit with the Harris
County district attorney that described the May assault and
alleged that a second assault occurred in June 2009. An
emergency protective order was granted on July 27, 2009.
Sometime between May and July 27, 2009, a few Harris County
sheriff deputies accompanied Barbara to her house so that she
could gather her property.
Barbara's motion, the charges against David were dropped
on August 24, 2009. On August 25, 2009, the Harris County
district attorney presented the charges against David, and
received an order extending Barbara's temporary
restraining order on August 27. A hearing was set for
September 9, 2009, and David Lancaster was ordered to appear.
A Harris County sheriffs deputy attempted to serve Lancaster
on .September i, 2, and 3, and successfully served him on
September 4, 2009.
September 9, 2009, Lancaster did not appear on time. As a
result, a two-year protective order was issued against
Lancaster by default. Lancaster was unemployed and homeless
until August 2010, when he received a job in Louisiana.
Before he earned his first paycheck, Barbara contacted him
and told him that he would need to pay her child support.
April and June of 2011, two criminal complaints were entered
against Lancaster for violating the 2009 protective order.
Lancaster asserts that he was not served notice of these two
complaints until November 2011, when he was served while
attending his son's wedding in Houston.
25, 2012, Lancaster was scheduled to appear for a hearing
regarding the criminal trials, but was late again. As a
result, his bond was revoked. Lancaster then pleaded guilty
to the two charges. He paid the fines and returned to
Louisiana. After returning to Louisiana, Lancaster was served
with another two-year protection order based on his guilty
January 2013, Lancaster filed a bill of review. In April 2013,
the Harris County district attorney agreed to expunge his
original 2009 criminal assault charge. In July 2014,
Lancaster's bill of review was denied because Lancaster
had a chance to rebut the 2009 protective order but he failed
to show up. Lancaster appealed and the court of appeals
reversed and remanded. On remand, Lancaster's case was
dismissed. Lancaster again appealed, and the trial
court's judgment was affirmed. Lancaster had also filed a
malpractice lawsuit against the attorney who represented him
in the bill of review. Lancaster lost, appealed, and lost on
appeal. In between his malpractice lawsuit being dismissed
and his bill of review appeal, he filed this lawsuit.
has sued everyone from his ex-wife to the current Harris
County district attorney - who was not in office during the
time of Lancaster's grievance - and everyone in between,
for four Constitutional violations and iraudulent
preclusion, a subset of res judicata applies in
subsequent lawsuits and is a bar to relitigation. It
prohibits the parties from raising any claim or defense that
could have been raised in the first lawsuit. When a party does
not rais: a claim or defense in the first case, the party has
waived the right to raise that claim or defense in any
subsequent lawsuit. In sum, "[c]laim preclusion prevents
splitting a cause of action [among successive claims]. The
policies [supporting] the doctrine reflect the need to bring
all litigation to an end, prevent vexatious litigation,
maintain stability of court decisions, promote judicial
economy, and prevent double recovery."
preclusion exists for Lancaster's actions.
Lancaster's bill of review was based on the same injury
as this lawsuit. He had the opportunity to sue the fourteen
defendants in this case then. He did not. It was not until he
lost in state court that he brought this lawsuit -attempting
to attack that judgment collaterally. Lancaster's ...