Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-11224/USCOURTS-ca5-14-11224-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Melodee Armstrong
Appellee
Jane E. Brown
Appellee
William Carter
Appellee
John Willie Collins
Appellee
Seth Dockery
Appellee
First American Title Insurance Company
Appellee
Donald Hicks
Appellee
Valerie A. Hicks
Appellee
Jill Lydic
Appellee
William Mahomes
Appellee
Elbert Moore
Appellant
Mark Mosley
Appellee
Tonya Parker
Appellee
Prosperity Bank
Appellee
Republic Title Insurance Company
Appellee
Joel Ross
Appellee
Sunnyvale Limited Partnership, Incorporated
Appellee
Superior Dynamics, Incorporated
Appellee
Vinson & Elkins Law Firm
Appellee
J. McDonald Williams
Appellee
Lonnie Woods
Appellee
William Scott Wyatt
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-11224

Summary Calendar

ELBERT MOORE, Minister, Individual and Corporate Officer of The New 

Testament Church of Christ Incorporated,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JOHN WILLIE COLLINS; SUPERIOR DYNAMICS, INCORPORATED, NonExisting & Dummy Corporation; SUNNYVALE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 

INCORPORATED, Non-Existing & Dummy Corporation; WILLIAM SCOTT 

WYATT; VINSON & ELKINS LAW FIRM; JOEL ROSS; MELODEE 

ARMSTRONG; TONYA PARKER; MARK MOSLEY; LONNIE WOODS; 

WILLIAM MAHOMES; FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY; 

SETH DOCKERY; VALERIE A. HICKS; REPUBLIC TITLE INSURANCE 

COMPANY; JILL LYDIC; PROSPERITY BANK; WILLIAM CARTER; 

DONALD HICKS; J. MCDONALD WILLIAMS, “Don”-Former Executive 

Tramell Crowe Company; JANE E. BROWN,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:14-CV-2197

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 1, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-11224 Document: 00513363692 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2016
No. 14-11224

2

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Elbert Moore, Minister of The New Testament Church of Christ, filed 

this suit to seek redress for alleged wrongs suffered in relation to the transfer 

of real estate. The district court dismissed the suit after determining that 

Moore had not raised a viable claim under federal law and that it should 

decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Moore’s state law claims. 

This appeal ensued. Defendant Judge Tonya Parker’s motion to file a surreply 

brief is granted. 

In his opening brief, Moore insists that he has a valid takings claim. Yet, 

the only state action he alleges in connection with the disputed transfer of 

property is that the state opened its court system to proceedings related to the 

transfer. This does not suffice to raise a valid takings claim. See Earnest v. 

Lowentritt, 690 F.2d 1198, 1200 (5th Cir. 1982). Because Moore has not raised 

arguments addressing the district court’s determinations concerning the 

Rooker-Feldman1 doctrine, his due process and equal protection claims, and 

his state law claims, he has abandoned any challenges he may have had to the 

district court’s rulings on these issues. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-

25 (5th Cir. 1993); see also Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 

813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

In his reply brief, Moore argues that Judge Parker did not timely serve 

him with a copy of her brief and should be sanctioned, that Judge Parker was 

not entitled to judicial immunity, that he did not consent to proceed before a 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

1 Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of 

Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).

 Case: 14-11224 Document: 00513363692 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2016
No. 14-11224

3

magistrate judge, and that he was entitled to a default judgment against 

several defendants. Because the third and fourth of these contentions are 

raised for the first time in Moore’s reply brief and are not in response to 

arguments presented by Judge Parker in her brief, we will not consider them. 

See United States v. Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346, 360-61 (5th Cir. 2010). 

Because his argument concerning Judge Parker’s entitlement to judicial 

immunity is responsive to arguments raised in her brief, we will consider it. 

See id. at 361. Nonetheless, the argument fails on the merits. Moore asserts 

that Judge Parker is not entitled to judicial immunity because she did not 

object to his notice that he refused to proceed before a magistrate judge. This 

allegation is irrelevant to the judicial immunity analysis. See Mireles v. Waco, 

502 U.S. 9, 9-12 (1991). 

Finally, Moore has not shown that Judge Parker’s error in initially 

electronically serving him warrants sanctions. See Coghlan v. Starkey, 852 

F.2d 806, 817 n.21 (5th Cir. 1988).

MOTION TO FILE SURREPLY BRIEF GRANTED; REQUEST FOR 

SANCTIONS DENIED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. 

 Case: 14-11224 Document: 00513363692 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/01/2016