No. 06-15-00062-CV

___________________________________________________________________ IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT TEXARKANA, TEXAS

___________________________________________________________________ ALLEN “F” CALTON, Appellant
v. STEVE SCHILLLER, SHARON KELLER, TERRIE LIVINGSTON, LOUIS STURNS, JOHN CAYSE, BOB GILL, Appellees

___________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 67th District Court, Tarrant County, Texas

Judge Donald J. Cosby Presiding Cause No. 153-270690-14

__________________________________________________________________ BRIEF OF APPELLEES’ SHARON KELLER, TERRY LIVINGSTON, JOHN CAYSE, BOB GILL AND LOUIS STURNS’ BRIEF

____________________________________________________________________ KEN PAXTON KAREN D. MATLOCK Attorney General of Texas Assistant Attorney General Chief, Law Enforcement Defense Division CHARLES E. ROY DEMETRI ANASTASIADIS* First Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General State Bar No. 01164480 JAMES E. DAVIS P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation Austin, Texas 78711 (512) 463-2080 / (512) 936-2109 Fax
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS

*Attorney of Record Oral Argument Requested ACCEPTED 06-15-00062-cv SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 12/15/2015 10:55:06 AM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERKii IDEN TITYOF PA RTIE S A ND CO UN SEL
APPELLANT P ro s e : A lle n F
. Ca lto n, T D CJN o. 112 3880 A P P E L L E E S : St e v e S c h i l l e r , S h a r o n K e l l e r , T e rri e L ivi ngst on, L oui s S tur

ns A T T O RN E Y S FO R A PP E L L E E S: D em etri A na sta sia dis Assistant Attorney

Ge neral Of fice of the Attorney

Ge neral of T exas A tto rn ey f or S h ar o nK e l l e r , T e r

r i e L ivi ngst on, Louis Sturns, Bob G ill and Joh n Cay ce Christoph er P onder Tarrant County

Assistant District A ttorney 401 Belknap Street Fo rt W orth, T ex as 761 96 Attorney for S teve Schilleriii TAB LE OF CO NTE NTS P a g e I d e n t i t y o f P a rt i e s . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . i i T ab l e o f A u t h o r i t i e s . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . iv, v, vi S t a tu t e s , R

u l e s an dC o d e s . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . v i I
. S t a t e m e n to f

th e C a s e . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1 I I
. S t a t e m e n to f

F a c t s . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 2 A
. Appe lle e Judg es ’ Re spon se to Appe llant’ s Is sue N o. 5: T he tr ia l co urt di d no t abuse its dis cretion by

deny ing leave to file ap p el l ant’ s Ninth Am ended C o m p l a i n t . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 3 B. Appellee Judges’ Response to Appellant’s issues No. 4 and 6: The tr ial court co rr ec tly gr an te d Appe lle e Judg es ’ Mo tio n to D ism iss
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 C o n c l u s i o n . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 1 2 N o t i c e o f E l e c t r o n i c F i l i n g . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 1 3 C e rt i f i c a t e o f S e rv i c e . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 1 4iv TAB LE OF AU THORITIES C ase P age Ada ms v. McI

lh an y, 593 F. Supp. 1025, 1032 (N. D. Te x. 1984).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 Bon ha m St at e Ban k v. Bea dl e, 9 0 7 S
. W
. 2 d4 6 5 , 4 6 7 ( T e x . 1 9 9 5 )
. ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 7 Ci tyof Lo s A nge les v . L

yo ns , 4 6 1 U
. S
. 9 5 , 1 1 2
- 1 1 3 ( 1 9 8 3 )
. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 8 Cozzo v. Tangipah oa Parish Cou ncil–President Gov’t , 2 7 9 F
. 3 d 2 7 3 , 2 8 0 ( 5 t h C i r . 2 0 0 2 )
. ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 8 Dal la s C ou nt y v. Hal se y, 8 7 S
. W
. 3 d5 5 3 , 5 5 4 ( T e x . 2 0 0 2 )
. ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... 5 D el k v. L eh m be rg, N o. 03– 12–0 0678 –C V , 201 4 W L 191 0314 , a t *3 (T ex. App.–Austin May

9, 2014, no pet.).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 D i P ortanov a v . M

onro e , 229 S.W .3d 324, 330 (Tex. App. -H ousto n [1 Dist. ] 2006 , pet. den.).
. . . . . st 8 For re st er v. W hi te , 4 8 4 U
. S
. 2 1 9 ( 1 9 8 8 )
. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 5 He ck v. Hum

phrey, 5 1 2 U
. S
. 4 7 7 ( 1 9 9 4 )
. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 6 In ac co rd a re O

pe rat ion R es cu e v. P lan ne d Pare nth ood , 93 7 S .W .2d60 , 71 -7 2 (Te x. Ap p. –Hou st on [14 Dis t.] 19 96 ), th af f’ d a s m odi fi ed , 975 S
. W
. 2d 5 46 ( T ex . 199 8)

. ......................... 9 Ko ch v . B ooth , 273 S.W .3d 451 (Tex. App. – Austin 200 8, pet. den.).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0v

Lu jan v . D ef

en de rs o f W ild lif e , 504 U.S . 555, 560, 112 S. Ct. 2130 , 119 L. Ed. 2d 35 1 (1992).
. . . . . . . . . . . 8 M cC arthye x re l. T rav is v
. H aw ki ns , 381 F.3d 407 , 412, r eh’ g denied, 391 F.3d 676; (5th Cir. 2004 ).
. . . . . . . . . 8 Mir el es v. W

ac o, 5 0 2 U
. S
. 9 ( 1 9 9 1 )
. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 5, 6 Ok palo bi v. F

oster , 2 4 4 F
. 3 d 4 0 5 , 4 2 1 , 4 2 3 , 4 2 5
- 4 2 6 ( 5 t h C i r . 2 0 0 1 )
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 8 Ope ra ti on Resc ue v. Pla nn ed Par en th oo d, 937 S.W .2d 60, 71-72 (T ex. App. – Houston [14 Dist. ] 1996 ), th aff’ d as m odified, 975 S.W .2d 546 (Tex. 1998 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 P ue rto R ic o A que duc t & Se we r A uth
. v . M etca lf & E

ddy , I nc ., 506 U.S . at 146, 113 S.Ct. at 689 (1993 ).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Pul li am v. Al le n, 4 6 6 U
. S
. 5 2 2 , 5 4 2
- 5 4 4 ( 1 9 8 4 )
. ....... ....... ....... ....... . . 4, 7, 10 R oyv . Sha nnon , N o. 02– 13–0 0238 –C V , 201 4W L 410 5271 , a t *3 (T ex.App.–Fort W orth August 21 , 2014, no pet.)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Smith v. District A ttorn ey O ffice for W

ood Cnty. , N o. 03– 13–0 0220 –C V , 201 4 W L 542 0536 , a t *2 –3 (T ex . App. –Aust in O ct . 24, 201 4, pe t. de nie d)
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 Smith v. 241st

Dist. Ct. of Smith Cnty. , No. 03-13-007 19-CV, 2015 W L 1611703 *2-3 (T ex. App. - Austin Apr. 9, 2015, no pet.).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 St. Paul Fire & Mar. Ins. C o. v. Tex as W

orkers’ Comp. Comm ’n
. 945 S. W
. 2d 8 86, 888 -8 9 ( T ex . App. – Aust in 1 997, no wri t)

. ............. 9 Stu m p v . Spa rk

m an, 4 3 5 U
. S
. 3 4 9 , 3 5 6
- 5 7 ( 1 9 7 8 )
. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... . 5vi

Te xa s A ss’ n of

B usi ness v . T

ex as A ir C

ontrol B oard , 8 5 2 S
. W
. 2 d4 4 0 , 4 4 4 ( T e x . 1 9 9 3 )
. ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 1 0 Te xa s D P S v
. M oore , 985 S.W .2d 149, 153 (Tex. App. – Austin 199 8, no pet.)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 To wn of P alm V

all eyv . J ohso n , 8 7 S
. W
. 3 d1 1 0 , 1 1 1 ( T e x . 2 0 0 1 )
. ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 9 Twi ll ig ea r v. C

ar re ll , 148 S. W
. 3d 5 02, 504 (T ex. App.—Houston [14 Dist. 2004 , pet. denied).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . th 5, 7 TNR CC v. IT-Davy , 7 4 S
. W
. 3 d8 4 9 , 8 5 5 ( T e x . 2 0 0 2 )
. ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 1 0 Var ga s v. Te xa s Dep t. o

f Cr imi na l Ju st ic e, 2012 W L 5974078 *3 (Te x. App.-Austin ,2012, no pet.).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Statu tes, Ru les and C odes A rt ic le I II , E le ve nthA m en dm en t, U
. S. Co nst itu tio n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4 2 U
. S
. C
. 1 9 8 3
. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ... 1 T e x . C i v . P r a c . & R e m . C o d e C h
. 1 4
. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 2 T e x . C i v . P r a c . & R e m . C o d e C h
. 3 7
. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 8 T e x . C i v . P r a c . & R e m . C o d e 3 7
. 0 0 3
. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 9 T e x . C i v . P r a c . & R e m . C o d e 6 5
. 0 1 1
. ....... ....... ....... ....... ..... 8, 9 T e x . R
. Ap p . P
. 3 8
. 1 ( i )
. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .... 3No. 0 6- 15 -0 00 62 -CV

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ __ __ __ __ ________ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ IN TH E C OUR T OF AP PE ALS SI XTH J UDICI AL DIS TRI CT TEXARKANA, TEXAS

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ __ __ __ __ _____ ALLEN “F ” C

ALTON, Ap pellant
v. STEV E SCH ILLLER, SH

ARON KELLER , TERRI E LIV INGSTON, LOUIS STURNS, J OHN CAY

SE, BOB GI

LL, Ap pellees

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ BRIE F O F A PP ELLEE S’ SHA RON KELL ER, TERRYLIVIN GSTON , JOHN CA YS E, BOB GIL L A ND LOU IS STU RN S’ B RIEF

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ TO TH E H ON ORA BL E JU ST ICE S O F T HE SIX TH CO URT OF AP PE AL S: Appe lle e Judg es S haro n K el le r, T er ri e L ivi ngst on, John Cay ce , Bo b G ill and L oui s Stu rn s fil e thi s br ie f in s uppo rt of the D istri ct

Co urt’ s di sm iss al of

the sui t br ough t a ga ins t the m

f or a ct ion s take n in the ir of

fi ci al ca pa ci ty a s j udi ci al of

fi ce rs of th e St at e o f Tex as . I. St at em en t of

t he C ase Appellant Calton sued Jud ges Sharon Ke ller, Te rrie L iving ston, John Cay ce, Bob Gill and Louis St u rn s for inj unctive relief under 42 U
. S. C. 198 3
. The D istrict Co urt gr an te d th ei r Mot ion to Dism iss the sui t a ga ins t the m f ile d onthe ba sis ofTh e dis tr ic t c ourt g ra nte d c o- a pp e lle e Ste ve Sc hil le r’ s 1 Chapter 14 Te x . Civ. P rac . & Re m. Code Motion to Dism iss on J une 1, 2015 (CR. 450). 2 j udi ci al an d sove re ign im m uni ty an d la ck ofj ur isd ic tio n. Ca lto n ap pe al s th e de ci sio n of th e d is tri ctco ur t. II. State m ent of F acts Sh ar on K el le r is the Pr es idi ng Judge of the Co urt of Cr im ina l Appe al s. T er

ri e L ivi ngst on i s th e Ch ie f Jus tic e of the Seco nd Court of

Appe al s. Joh n C ay ce is a form er j ustice on that cou rt. Louis Sturns is the Presiding Judge of the 213 District th Co urt. B ob G ill is a for

m er dis tr ic t cour

t j udge
. D ef

en dant Judge s are sue d inthe ir official ca pacity (CR. 197). O n May 20, 2 014, Calton was c onvi cted of a attem pted
m ur de r an d se nte nc ed

to lif e im pr iso nm en t by

the 213 D istri ct C ou rt of T ar rant th County . ( CR. 17-18). T he Second District C ourt of App ea l s , Ft . W orth, T exas affir m ed his conv iction in 2005 (CR. 17-18). H e as s erted in his Petition th at D ef en dant/Appel le e Court

Re porte r St ev e Sc hil le r fa ile d to pr ovi de him w itha co m p l e t e ap p e l l a t e r e c o r d c o m p r o m i s i n g h i s r i g h t t o du e p r o c e s s a n d ab i l i t yto effe ctively

challenge his convi ction on appeal (CR . 199). 1 Ca lto n ‘ s su it ag ai nst

the Jud ge s ar e fo r ac ts t ak enby the m w hil e dis posi ng o f
a case in which Plaintiff wa s a crim inal defendant and appellant. The Judg es m oved to d ism iss the c la im s a ga ins t the m on th e ba sis of

j udi ci al and s ove re ignim m uni ty which w as granted by

the District C ourt on May 21, 2014 (CR. 40).3

A. Ap pellee Judges’ R esponse to A ppellant ’s Issue N o. 5: The tr ial c ou rtd id n ot ab us e it s d isc re ti on b y d en yin g le ave t o f ile ap pel la nt’s Ninth Am ende d Compla in t. Appe llant’ s br ie f at pa ge 45 cl ai m s that he te nde re d his 9 A m en de d C om pla int th fo r fi lin g onMay

21, 201 5, a y ear af

te r the dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed his sui t a ga ins t the Judg es. He argues that this was er ror as to co-def

endant/appellee Schiller but does not ar g u e th a ti tw a s e rr o r a s t o th e Ap p e l l e e J u d g e s a n dp r o v i d e s n o au t h o ri ty supp ortin g an arg um en t tha t i t i s an abus e of dis cr et ion fo r a tr ia l c ourt t o de ny le av e to am en d, f

ile d on e y ear af

te r th e Co ur t di sm iss ed

the de fe ndants f

ro m the sui t. App el la nt’ s br ie f doe s no t e xpl ai n ho wthe 9 A m en de d C om pla int state d a th cl ai m a ga ins t a ppe ll ee Jud ge s or

de fe at s th ei r j udi ci al im m uni ty . A rg um en ts n ot rai se d or bri efed are d eem edwaiv ed
. In re E sta te of Cu rti

s, D ec ea se d, 465 S. W
. 3d 357, 379 ( T ex . App. —T ex ar kana201 5, pe t. dis m ' d)
. ( “ T he T ex as Ru le s of Appe llate Pr oc ed ur e re qui re an appe llant t o pr ovi de ‘ a cl ear an d c onc ise arg um en t f or the contentio ns m ade, with appropriate citations to autho rities an d to the record.’ See T ex . R. App. P
. 38. 1( i)
. ‘B a r e a s s e rt i o n s o f e r r o r , w i t h o u tar g u men to r au t h o r i t y, wa ive error .’ ”). B. Ap pellee Judges’ R esponse to A ppellant ’s issues No. 4 and 6: The t ri al co urt c or rect ly gr an ted App el le e J udg es ’ Mo tio n to Dis m is s. Appe llant’ s br ie f at

pa ge 49 arg ue s th at “ Judi ci al im m uni ty is not abar to pr ospe ct ive inj unc tiv e re lie f ag ai nst aj udi ci al of

fi ce r. . . ” ci tin g Pulliam v. Allen , 466 U. S. 522, 542-544 (1984).4

T he o n l y r e l i e f th a tap p e a r s t o h a v e b e e n s o u g h ta g a i n s tap p e l l e e s S ha ro n K el le r, the P re sid ing Jud ge of the Co urt of Cr im ina l Ap pe al s, T er ri e L ivi ngst on, the Chief Justice of the Se cond Court of Appeals, John Cay ce, a f orm er j ustice on that
co ur t, Lo ui s St urns , th e Pre si di n g J u d g e of t he 21 3 Dis tri ctCo ur t an d B ob Gil l, a th fo rm er dis tr ic t c ourt j udge is in the E igh th A m en de d C om pla int , CR
. 268 -2 69: IX P rayer F or Re lief

... ( 2 ) E nte r an inj unc tio n t h a t o r d e r t h e P l a i n t if f to to re ce ive the out -o f tim e- Appe al in ac co rd an ce w iththe T ex . R. App. P. tha t we re in place at the tim e tim e ( sic ) Pl ai nti ff s init ia l Ap pe al in 2004 and 2 005 ( sic ) It sho uld be furthe r or de re d th at

the out -o f- T im e- Appe al sho uld co m port t o th e de m an ds o f the 14 A m en dm en t. th

... ( 5 ) or de r suc h A ddi tio na l r el ie f, bot h ge ne ra l an d spe ci al , le ga l and e qui ta

ble , to w hic h Ca lto n m ay

j ust ly be en titled to inc lud ing but not li m ite d to c ra ft ing the eq ui ta ble I nj unc tiv e an d/o r In j unc tio n or de rs that w ill affor d Calton to rece ive the com plete and sufficient Record on Appe al
. P la int if

f is to be pro vid ed at state expe nse . A nd the appoin tm ent of counsel on Appeal and the co u rt orde re d su

bse que nt o ut- of

ti m e- Appe al to uti liz e sa id re co rd of suf fi ci en t c om

ple te ne ss. Neither fo rm er Se co nd Co urt of Appe al s Jus tic e John Cay ce nor Bo b Gill , a fo rm er dis tr ic t c ourt j udge cu rren tl y se rv e on the respective courts. An order
en j oin ing the m

to re qui re the it em s sp ec if ie d inthe E igh th A m en de d C om plai nt5

w oul d be ine ff

ec tua l as the y

are no l onge r in an of

fi ci al pos iti on s o a s to be able to im ple m en t any

of the or de rs sou ght

by Ca lto n. T he y

m ay be dis m iss ed

f orm thi s su it
on th is gro un d a lo ne . Ok palo bi v. F

oster , 24 4 F .3d40 5, 4 21 , 42 3 (5 th Cir . 20 01 ). T ex as la w h olds th at

“ j udge s a ct ing in the ir

of fi ci al j udi ci al c ap ac ity

have im m uni ty fr om lia

bil ity an d sui t fo r j udi ci al ac ts pe rf orm ed w ith in the sc ope of the ir j urisdictio n.” Tw ill ige ar v . Ca rre ll , 148 S. W
. 3d 502, 504 (T ex . App. —H oust on [ 14 th Dis t. 20 04 , p et . den ie d) , ci tin g , Dallas County v. H alsey, 87 S
. W
. 3d 5 53, 554 ( T ex . 2002 ). “ T his im

m uni ty e xte nds to a ct ion s th at

are don e in e rr or , m al ic iou sly , and even in excess of t h e j udge’s a utho rity .” Id., cit in g, Stu m p v . Spa rk

m an , 435 U.S
. 349, 356 -5 7 ( 1978 ). T he im m uni ty is ove rc om e “ onl y

f or ac tio ns tha t are : ( 1) non ju d i c i a l , i.e., not

take n inthe j udge ’ s of

fi ci al c ap ac ity ; or

( 2) take n inthe c om

ple te absence o f all j urisdictio n.” Id , cit in g, Mireles v. W

aco , 502 U.S . 9 ( 1991 ). “ Whether
ana ct is j udi ci al ( or

non -j udi ci al ) fo r thi s purp ose is de te rm ine d by the na tur e of

the act , i.e., w he the r it is a

f unc tio n no rm al ly

pe rf orm ed by aj udge , a s c ontra ste d f

ro m oth er a dm ini str at ive , le gis la tiv e, or e xe cu tiv e ac ts tha t sim

ply ha ppe n to be don e by j ud ge s. ” I

d., ci ti ng , F orr es te r v . W

hit e, 48 4 U.S. 2 19 (19 88 ). Und er Tex as law,

“ j udi ci al a ct s in cl ude tho se pe rf orm ed by j udge s ina dj udi catin g, or oth er w ise exercising their ju d i ci al authority over, proceedings pend ing in their courts.” Id., ci ti ng , Mir el es , 502 U
. S. a t 13
.2 Hec k v. H umphrey , 51 2 U. S. 47 7 (1 99 4)
. (c ivi l r ig hts c la im that im pli e s th e inv a lid ity of his c onvic tio n mu st sh owit h a s b e e n r e ve rs e d, e xpun g e d o r o the rw ise inv a lid ate d. ); Vargas v. Texas De pt. of Cri minal Justice, 2 0 1 2 WL 5 9 7 4 0 7 8 * 3 ( T e x. App.-Austin,2012, no pet.) ( An i nmate cannot bring a civil ac tion for damag es that challeng e the law fulness of his convic tion or confineme nt.) 6 In the E ighth Am ended Com plaint, Calton sued these ju d i cial office rs based
o n ac t i o n s / o m i s s i o n s al l eg ed l y t ak en b y t h e ju d g es o r t h ei r c o u r t i n Pl ai n t i ff ’s unde rl y ing c ri m ina l c as e- a co llate ra l a ttack on pri or j udi ci al r

uli ngs. Asui t ch al le ngi ng a

c ri m ina l c onvi ct ionm ay

not be br ough t unt il an d un le ss tha t c onvi ct ion has been set aside. 2 Whil e “ j udi ci al im

m uni ty is no t a bar to pros

pective injunctive re lie f ag ai nst a j udicial officer acting in a judicial capacity or t o attorney ’ s fees, for ob taining such relief, ” Twillinger

, 14 8 S.W . 3dat 5 02 , 50 4, f.n . 8, (Tex . App .-Hou st on [14 th Dis t.] 20 04 , p e t . d e ni ed) c it in g, Pulliam v. Allen , 466 U
. S. 522 , 542 -4 4 ( 1984 )( em pha sis original), inj unction s m ay not be issu ed by

a district court in the role of a super ap pe llate c ourt a dj udi catin g th e le ga lity of de ci sio ns o f the Co urt of Appea ls, the Co urt of Cr im ina l Appe al s or

anothe r dis tr ic t j udge
. T he D istri ct Co urt di d no t have author i t y t o s i t as an appellate court in the underly ing action, to waive or a lter ap pe llate ti m e ta

ble s, appoi nt C al tonappe llate c ouns el , ord er the dis re gard

of the Te xas Rules of Appellate Procedure or in any other way

second guess , r eview or

alter decisions m ade by

the Co u rt o f Ap p eals, Court of Crim inal Appeals or another7

dis tr ic t j udge
. Mo re ove r, the r el ie f re que sted by the E igh th A m en de d C om pla int
cannot be a ff or de d by Jud ge K el le r or

Jus tic e L ivi ngst on, ne ith er of w hic h can is sue de ci sio ns i ndi vid

ua lly w ith out am aj or ity

of the f el lowj udi ci al of

fi ce rs a lso j oin ing in an y de ci si on s. T he T e x a s S up r e m e C o u rt h a s m a d e i t c l e a r t h a t “ a d e c l a r a t o ry j u d g m e n t i s ap pr opr ia te onl y

if aj ust ic ia ble c ontro ve rs y

e xis ts a s to the r igh ts an d st at us o f the pa rt i es an d the controversy will be r esolved bythe declaration so ught .” Bon ha m St at e Ban k v. Bea dl e, 907 S. W .2d 465, 467 ( T ex . 199 5)
. T he re w as no j ust ic ia ble controversy

in this case because the district court lacked j ur i s d i ct ion to order ap pe llate and d istri ct co urt j udge s to sus pe nd ap pe llate de ad lin es , va cate the ir pr ior rulings , a ppoi nt C alton an attorney , susp end the Te xas Rules of Appellate P rocedure or order j udicial officers to perf orm their duties in conform ance with the directives of adis tr ic t j udge
. T he E igh th A m en de d C om pla int f ai le d to e sta

bli sh a c as e or co ntr ove rs y

suf fi ci en t t o gi ve the dis tr ic t c ourt j ur isdic ti on ov er oth er dis tr ic t and ap pe llate c ourt j udge s a ct ing in the ir of fi ci al c ap ac ity
. W ith out

the redre ss a

bil ity el em en ts o f standi ng, adis tr ic t c ourt’ s r uli ng w oul d be an a dvi sor y opi nio n barr ed

by federa l law, the E le ve nthA m en dm en t, A rt ic le II I, U
. S. Co nst itu tio n an d Tex as law. Ci tyof Lo s A nge les v . L

yo ns , 461 U.S . 95, 112-113 (1983);” P ue rto R ic o A que duc t & Se we r Auth . v . Me tc al

f & E ddy , I nc ., 506 U.S . at 146, 113 S.Ct. at 689 (1993 );8

O kp alo bi , 24 4 F .3dat 4 25 -4 26 , ci tin g Lu jan v. D ef

en de rs of W

ild lif e , 504 U
. S. 555 , 560, 112 S
. Ct
. 213 0, 119 L
. E d. 2d 3 51 ( 1992 ); M cC arthye x re l. Trav is v
. H

aw ki ns , 381 F. 3d 4 07, 412 , r eh ’ g de nie d, 391 F
. 3d 6 76; ( 5thCi r. 200 4) ( ci tin g Co zz o v . Tangip ahoa Parish Council– President Gov’ t , 27 9 F .3d27 3, 2 80 (5t h C ir. 2 00 2)
. T ex as law , w hic h tracks fed eral l awon this iss ue hol ds tha t an a lle ga tio n of pa st m isc ondu ct al one is not asub sti tut e fo r the e xis te nc e of aj ust ic ia ble c ontro ve rs y no r do es it au th or iz e a st at e co ur t to is su e an a d v i s o r y o p in io n. Di Po rt an ov a v . M onro e , 229 S. W .3d 324, 330 (Tex. App. -H ousto n [1 Dist. ] 2006 , pet. de n .) (If a st j ust ic ia ble c ontro ve rs y doe s not ex ist , the tr ia l co urt m ust dis m iss the ca se fo r la ck of subj ec t- m atte r j ur isd ic tio n. ); Te xa s D P S v
. M oore , 98 5 S .W .2d14 9, 1 53 (Tex . App .– Austin 199 8, no pet.) (“ A j usticiable controv ersy m ust be dis tingu ished from an advis or y opi nio n, w hic h is pr ohi bit ed unde r both the T ex as and f ed er al c onst itu tio ns. A j udgm ent under the U D JA[ Ch
. 37 T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE . De claratory Judg m en ts] de pe nds on a f ind ing that the iss ue s are not hy pothe tic al or

c ont ing en t,
an d th e que sti ons pr es en te d m ust r es olv e an ac tua l contro ve rs y . ”)
. T he abse nc e in a statute of the express prerequi sites of equitable relief does not negate such
re qui rem en ts . Town of P alm V all eyv . J ohns on , 87 S
. W
. 3d 1 10, 111 ( T ex . 200 1) (“ Alt ho ug h... 65.011(1) [T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE - I nj unc tio n] doe s no t
expr essly m ak e the la ck

of an a de qua te le ga l r em edy apr er equis ite f

or inj unc tiv e9

re lie f, thi s r equir em en t of e qui ty co nt in ue s. T he statut e doe s no t pe rm it inj unc tiv e relie f wi thou t the showing of irreparable har m otherwise r equired by

equity .” ). Conjec tural or speculative events will n ot supp ort a claim for in j unctive relief as such claim is not justiciable under either T exas injunctio n s t at utes or the U n i f o rm D ec larator

y Jud gm en t A ct

[ 65. 011, 37. 003 T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE .]
. St. P aul Fire &Mar. Ins. C

o. v. Tex as W

orkers’ Comp. Comm ’n
. 945 S. W
. 2d 8 86, 888 -8 9 (Tex . App . – Au st in 19 97 , no writ ). T o be e nti tle d to inj unc tiv e re lie f, pla int if fs “
.. . m ust sho wthat harm

is im m ine nt. T he y m

ust al so es ta

bli sh that thi s im

m ine nt h ar

m w ill be ir re para ble if the injunction is no t issued.” O pe rat ion R es cu e v. P lan ne d Pare nth ood , 937 S
. W
. 2d 6 0, 71- 72 ( T ex . App. – H oust on [ 14 D ist
. ] 199 6) , a ff’ d as m od ifie d, 975 S
. W
. 2d 5 46 th (T ex . 1998 ). “ T he U D JA [C h. 37 T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE . ] i s ‘mer e l y a pr oc edur al de vi ce fo r de ci di ng cas es alr ead y wit hi n t he co ur t’s jur is di ct io n.’ Te xa s A ss’ n of B usi ness v . T

ex as A ir C

ontrol B oard , 852 S. W
. 2d 440, 444 (T ex . 199 3)
. T he UD JA does n ot extend a cou rt’ s j urisdictio n, and a li tigant’s r equest for declar atory relief does not alter a suit’s underly ing natu re. ” Ko ch v . B ooth , 273 S. W
. 3d 4 51 ( T ex . App. – Aust in 2 008, pe t. de n. ) ci tin g TNR CC v. IT-Davy , 74 S
. W
. 3d 8 49, 855 ( T ex . 2002 ). T he Com

plaint m akes no allegation su fficient to s u p p o rt equitable relief
un de r Tex as law.10

T he U nit ed

S ta te s Supr em e Co urt ha s m ad e it cl ear that the re are li m itatio ns o n th e a v a i l ab i l i t y o f

e qu i t ab l e r e l i e f

a g a i n s taju d g e i n h i s o f

f i c i a l c ap a c i t y: T he li m itatio ns a lr ea dy

im pose d by the re qu ir em en ts f

or o b t a i n i n g e qu i t ab l e r e l i e f a g a i n s t a n y d e f e n d a nt —

a show ing of

an in ad equa te r em edy

a t l aw an d of a

se ri ous risk of irrepa rabl e harm , sever ely curtail the risk that j udges will be h arassed and their independence co m pr om ise d. P ull iam , 10 4 S .Ct. at 19 78
. A dam s v . M cI lha ny , 593 F. Su

pp. 102 5, 103 2 (N
. D
. T ex . 1984 ). The E ighth Am ended Com plaint m ade no showing of an inadequate rem edy at law or a show ing of a se ri ous ri sk o f ir re para ble harm . A ny

harm or pr ej udi ce in the pr oc ed ur e re sul tin g in the c om

pr om ise of

Ca lto n’ s a

ppe al is pr ope rl y

dir ec te d to the Co urt of Appe al s an d the Co urt of Cr im ina l Appe al s, thr ough the appe llate pr oc es s
w iththe Co urt a ct ing a s a body an d lit igate d in a cc or danc e w iththe T ex as Ru le s of Appellate P rocedure. T he appellate p ro ce s s an d procedure in its resolutio n of an indiv idual case, cannot be challenged bysuing indiv idual judicial office rs, even when t h e C o u rt , a ct i n g as a b o d y, i s s u es ar g u ab l y e rr o n eo u s ju d i ci al d ec i s i o n s . Ca l t o n ’s
re qu e st f or e qu i t abl e r e l i e f

s ho ul d w a s pr op e r l y

d i sm i ss e d onthe b a si s of j ud icial im m uni ty and f or la ck of sub j ec t m atte r j ur isd ic tio n. I n s t r u c t i v e i n t h i s r e g a rdis Smith v
. 241 st D ist
. Ct
. of Sm ith Cn ty ., N o. 03-13-00 719-CV, 2015 W L 1611703 *2-3 (Te x. App. - Austin Apr. 9, 2015, no pet.).11

Inthat c as e, S m ithsou ght inj unc tiv e an d de cl ar at or y r el ie f fo r vi ol at ion s of

“ due
co ur se of lawand the c onst itu tio n of the U nit ed

S ta te s. ”, de cl arat ions th at his
co nst itu tio na l r igh ts w er e vio la te d inthe und er ly ing cr im ina l pr oc ee din gs a ga ins t him , an injunction requiring the Di s t ri ct Courts to order the rem and of his crim inal
case and to set asid e the j udgm ent “ as being vo id for s tate and feder al constitut ional vio la tio ns i n c ri m ina l pr oc ee din g” and an inj unc tio n r equir ing the D istri ct Co urt t o ad m it th atSm it h's co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s wer e v io la te d i n t he cri m in al pro ceed in gs . T he Co urt of

Appe al s c onc lud ed

that S m ith ' s c la im s f

or i nju nctiv e an d de cl ar at or

y r el ie f w er e ba se d onpa st a ct ion s, and m ad e re tr osp ect ive c la im s and the re fo re not

a ct ion ab le , c iti ng Sm ith v. D istric t At torne y O ffi ce for W ood Cn ty . , N o. 03–1 3–00 220– CV , 201 4 W L 542 0536 , a t *2 –3 ( T ex . App. –Aust in O ct . 24, 201 4 , pe t. de nie d) (a lle ge d cl ai m s fo r de cl ar at or y an d inj unc tiv e re lie f ba se d on past act s d id
no t i nvok e ultra

vir es c la im ); D el

k v. L eh m be rg

, No. 03–1 2–00 678– CV, 201 4 WL 1910 314, a t *3 ( T ex . App .–Au st in M ay 9, 201 4, no p et . ); R oyv . Sha nnon , N o. 02–1 3–00 238– CV , 201 4W L 410 5271 , a t *3 ( T ex . App. –F ort W o r thAu g u s t 2 1 , 2 0 1 4, no p et . ) (u

phol din g di sm iss al of

inm at e' s suit ag ai nst

j udge and d istri ct

a tto rn ey and
expla ini ng tha t ul tr a vir es e xc ep tio n to im m uni ty doe s no t per

m it re lie f fo r ac ts and
om is si on s al read y

co m m it te d)
.12 CON CLU SION Ca lto n’ s a

ppe llate br ie f pr ovi de s no auth or ity su ppor tin g th e re ve rs al of

the District C ourt’ s Or der dism issin g the suit agains t appellees’ Sh aron Ke ller, Pre s i ding Judge of the Court of Crim inal Appeals, Te rrie L iving ston, Chief Justice of the S ec ond Co urt of

Appe al s, Joh n C ay ce , af orm er j ust ice on tha t c ourt, L oui s Sturns, Pr esiding Judge of the 213 District C ourt and Bob Gill, a form er district th
co urt j udge
. Jud ic ia l and s ove re ignim m uni ty and the abse nc e of

aj ustic ia

ble
co ntr ove rs y

bar a dis tr ic t c ourt su it ag ai nst j udi ci al of

fi ce rs se ek ing an in

j unc tio n requiring them

to perform

their j udicial dut ies in a m anner p re s cr ibed by a district court. T he district court lacked j urisdictio n to order other courts to sus pend the Texas Ru le s of Ap pe llate Pr oc ed ur e, re qui re the Co urt of Cr im ina l Appe al s or the Co urt of Appe al s to w ai ve de ad lin es and a pp ella te ti m e ta

ble s, appoi nt C al tonan a ppe llate law y er or in an y oth er w ay dir ec t the pe rf

orm an ce of ind ivi dua l Ju dge s and Just ic es ’ jud ic ia l dut ie s. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco ur t’s d eci si on sh ou ldbe affi rm ed
. Re spe ct fu lly

sub m itt ed , KEN PAXTON Attorney Ge neral of T exas CHARLES E. ROY First A ssistant Attorney

Ge neral JAME S E . D AV IS D ep uty A tto rn ey G en er al fo r Ci vil L iti ga tio n13 KA REN D . MA TL OCK Assistant Attorney

Ge neral Ch ie f, L awE nf

or ce m en t D ef

en se D ivi sio n /s/ D em etri A nastasi adi

s DE MET RI A

NA ST AS IA DI S Assistant Attorney

Ge neral A tto rn ey -I n- Ch ar ge T ex as S ta te Bar N o. 011 6448 0 Demetr i.Anastasiadis@texasattorney g ener al.g ov L awE nf or ce m en t D ef

en se D ivi sio n P. O
. Bo x 12 548, Ca

pit ol S ta tio n A ust in, T ex as 787 11 (5 12) 463 -2 080 / F ax ( 512) 936 -2 109 AT TO RNEY S F OR D E F E N D AN T S / A P P ELLEE S SHA RO N K

ELLER , JOH N CA YC E, BOB G ILL AND LOUIS S TURNS

NOTI CE OF ELE CTRONI C FILI NG I , D E ME T RI A

N A ST A SI A D IS , A ssi stant A tto rn ey G en era l of

T ex as , do he re by c er tif y that I ha ve el ec tr oni ca lly subm itt ed f or f ili ng a tr ue and c or

re ct c opy of th e above and f

or eg oin g i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h F i l e & S e rv e Xp r e s s th e E
- f i l ing
se rv ic e pr ovi de r fo r the Co urt of Ap pe al s Six th Judi ci al D istri ct , T ex ar kana , T ex as , on this the 15 day

of D ec em be r 2015
. th /s/ D em etri A nastasi adi

s DE MET RI A

NA ST AS IA DI S Assistant Attorney

Ge neral14 CERTI FICATE OF SERVI CE I, D E ME T RI A

N A ST A SI A D IS , A ssi stant A tto rn ey G en er al of

T ex as , do he re by c er tif y that a co pyof the above a nd f

or eg oin g Br ie f of

A pp el le es ’ Sh ar on Keller, Terr y Livingston, Jo hn Cayse, Bob Gill and Louis St urns’ Brief has been
se rv ed by pla ci ng the sa m e in the U nit ed S ta te s P ost al S er

vic e, pos ta ge pr ep ai d, on thi s th e 15 day

of D ec em be r, 201 5, a ddr es se d to : th A lle n “ F” Ca lto n, T D CJN o. 112 3880 T D CJ- S til es U nit 3060 F M 3 514 Be aum ont , T ex as 777 05 A ppe ari ng Pro s e /s/ D em etri A nastasi adi

s DE MET RI A

NA ST AS IA DI S Assistant Attorney

Ge neral