Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circumstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40431 Su m m ar y Cal endar

ERI C VON DRAKE , P l a i n tiff-A p p ell a n t v. S T PA U L T R AV E L E R S IN S U R A N C E C O ; B Y R N E , M E A D , & S M I THERM AN LAW F I RM ; L I BERTY M UTUAL AUTOM OTIVE I N SURA N CE CO M PAN Y; SEDG W I CK , DETER T, M OR GA N & AR N OLD LAW F I RM ; M ARK T I LL M AN; AL I CA TAT UM ANDREW S ; J ES S I CA S ET TL ER; HARTF ORD I NSURANCE CO; ABB AS S S EKHAVAT; J OAN BAZ AR; L I S A DEAN HULL; L EDI NE S ANCHEZ; T ERES A G GRAY ; S P E N C E R B R O W N E ; H E Y G O O D , R E Y E S , E T A L LA W F IR M ; M A R T IN HOF F M AN; GR EG GR I F F I T H; MART I N, DI S I ER E, J EF F ER S ON & W I SD O M ; LEV O N G H O VA TA N IAN ; M O LLYM ER ED I TH FRA N CI S; JAM ES A MO S EL EY; VAL ENCIA NAS H; J ES S I CA S TE TT LE R, D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rtf or th e E aster n D i st ri ctof Texas 6: 08- C V

- 301

B ef ore D AV IS, SM ITH , an d D E N N IS, C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R IA M: * United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D November

23, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 40431

2 Pl ai nt i f f

- A p p el l antE r i cD r ake, pr oc ee di ng pro se , f i l edm u l ti p l e su i ts ari si n g from t w o al l egedau t om obi l e acci den t s agai n stSt. P au lT ravel ers I nsur anceC om pany, the B yr ne, M ead, & Sm i t her m an l aw f i r m , Liber t y M ut ual A ut om ot ive I nsur ance C om pany, t he Sedgw i c k, D et er t , M or gan, & A r nol d l aw f i rm , M ark T i l l m an , A l i ci a T atum A n drew s, Jessi ca Sett l er, H art f ord Insuran ce C om pa n y, Abba ss S e k h a v a t, Joan B azar, L i sa D ean H u l l , L edi n e Sa n chez, T e r e s a G . G r a y , S p e n c e rB r o w n e , th e H e y g o o d , R e y e s la w fir m , J u d g e M a r tin Ho f fma n , G r e gG r i f

f i t h , t h e Ma r t i n , D i s i e r e , J e f fe r s o n , & Wi s d o m l a w f i r m, Le v o n G. Ho v a t a n i a n , J u s t i c e M o l l yM e r e d i t h F r anc i s , J u s t i c e J a m e s A. M o s e l e y, J udg e Val e nc i a N as h, a nd Jes s i c a St e t t l e r(c o l l e c t ive l y “t he defenda n t s” )

. I n t h e m ostrec en tsui tf i l ed by D rake, the di st ri ctcourtadop t ed t he Rep o r t and Rec o m m e nda t i o ns o f U

. S. M agi s t r at e J udg e J o hn D. Lo ve , a nd g r a n t e d t h e d e fe n d a n t s ’ m o t io n s t o d is m is s t h e s u ita n dd e n ie da s m o o tD r a k e ’s
m ot i on s f

or evi den t i ary h eari n gs. Th e di st ri ctcourtal so den i ed D rake’ s M ot i on f or D efa u lt J u d g m en tagainstt w o of t h e defen da n t s. Th e di st ri ctcourtal so de ni e d the de fe nda nt s ’M o t i o ns f o rEnt r y o f Vex at i o us Li t i ga nt O r de r . Fo rt he fol l ow i n g re a son s, w e A F F IR M the j u d gm en t of the distri ct cou rt.

I. W e rec it e t h e t h orough fact s of M agis t rat e Ju dg e L ove: P l a in tiff w a s i n vo lve di n an au tom ob i l e a cciden t w i th D ef endantA l i ce T at um A ndre w s, i n D al l as C ount y, Texas i n M ay 20 04
. The r e af

t e r , Pl ai nt if

f f i l e d a l awsuita ga i ns tAndr e w s a nd P l ai n t i f f ’ s i n suran ce carri er L ibert y M u t u alA u t om ot ive Insuran ce Com pa ny, i n t he 4 4th J udi c i alCour to f D all as County; D r ak e r e pr e s e nt e d hi m s e l f

i n t he l awsui t
. O n Augus t3 0, 2 00 4, Vi s i t i ng Judge K entSi m s ent er ed an o r deri n t hatc as e de c l ar i ng D r ake t o be a ve xat i ous l i t i gantan d orde r i ng D r ake t o pos ts ec urit y o rhave h is la w s u it d is m is s e d

. In r e s p o n s e , D r a k e file dan o tic e o f n o n s u it i n w h i ch h e asser t ed that he w o u ldre- f i l e hi s l aw sui ti n an ot h er court w i t h add i t i on aldefen da n t s.N o. 09- 40431

3 D rake f i l ed a second l aw sui t aga i n st A n drew s i n t h e U n ited St at e s D i s t r i c tCour tf o rt he Eas t e r n Di s t r i c to f Te xa s
— Tex ar ka na D ivi s i o n a ga i ns tm anyo f the de fe nda nt s na m e d i n t he pr e s e nt l aw suit , i ncl udi ng Liber t y M ut ualA ut om ot ive I nsur anceC om pany, A l i ce A n drew s, L i sa D

. H u l l , J e ss ica S et t l er, H art f ord Insuran ce C om p a n y, Ab a ss S ek h a va t, an dJo a n B a za r . H e all eg eda v a ri ety of cl ai m s, i n cl u di n g raci aldi scr i m i n ati on ari si n g f rom t h e den i alof an i n suran ce c l ai m . Plai n t if f l atervol u n t ari l y di sm i ssed t h ose cl ai m s. Les s th a n t w o w eeks l ater , D efen da n tSp en cer B row n e of D e fe n d a n tla w fi r m H e y g o o dR e y e s fi le das im il a rs u ito n D r a k e ’s be half i n t he 68 t h Jud i c i al D i s t r i c t Cour t , D all as , Tex as, na m i ng A l i c e An dre w s and L iber t y M ut ualA ut om ot ive In su r anceC o. as def endant s. M r . B r ow ne l at erw i t hdre w as Pl ai nt if f ’ s at t or ney. A n d rew s m ov edto h a v e P l a i n tiff de cl a reda v ex a ti ou s l i ti ga n t. D ef endantJudge M ar t i n H of fm an deni ed the m ot i on f i ndi ng t hat C h ap t er 11 of

t h e T exas C iv ilP ract i ce & R em edi es C ode d i d n ot a p p l yb e c a u s e , a l t h o u g h P l a i n t if f w a s p r o c e e d i n gp r o s e b yt h e t i me o f th e h e a r in g , h e h a db e e n re p r e s e n te db yc o u n s e lw h e n th e s u it w as i ni t i all y f

i l e d. A ndre w s hi r ed De fendant s G r eg G r if f i t h, Levon H ovnat ani an a n dthe l a w f

i rm of M a rti n , D is e ire, J efferso n & W i sd om to r epr es entherin a m andam us ac t i on s ee ki ng t o r eve r seJudge H of fm an ' s r u l i n g on t h e vexati ou s li t i gan tm ot i on . Th e F if t h C ou rt o f A p p e a ls , ina n o p in io n a u th o r e db yD e fe n d a n t J u s tic e M o lly Franci s and j oi ned by D ef endantJust i c e Jam es M os el ey, f ound t hat C h a p ter 11 of th e T ex a s C ivilP ra cti ce & R em ed i es C od e a p p l i edto p ro se l i ti ga n ts w h o w ere rep rese n teda t th e i n i ti a lfi l i n g of th e su i t. T h ere a ft er, J u d ge H offm a n d e cl a redP l a i n tiff a v ex a ti ou s l i ti ga n t. P l ai n t i f f ’ s l aw sui t w as sub sequ en t l y di sm i ssed w i t h prej u di ce af t er h e fa ile dto p r o v id e th e re q u ir e db o n d

. In A p r il 2 0 0 8 , P la in tiff file de s s e n tia llyth e s a m e l a w s u it in Sm al lC l ai m s C our t , D al l a s C ount y, Texas

. Thatc as e w as di sm i ssed by D efen da n tJu dg e V al en ci a N ash on Ju n e 12, 200 8 f or fa ilu r e to co m p lyw ith th e te r m s o f th e v e x a tio u s litig a n t o r d e r . O n June 9, 2008, Pl ai nt if f f i l ed a V er if

i ed Peti ti on to P e r p e tu a te T e s tim o n yinth e E a s t e r n D is tr ic t o f T e x a s , M a r s h a ll D ivi si on , t h at s ou gh tt h e dep o siti on s of A l i ce A n drew s, G reg G rif f i t h , Jessi ca Stet t l er, a n d L evon H ovn atanian. A l lfour of t h ese i n divi du al s are defend an t s i n t h i s l aw sui t
. Jud ge W ard tr an sferred t he ac t i on s ua spo nt e t o the N ort her n D i st ri ct o f Texas, D al l as D ivi s i o n. The c as e w as a s s i gne d t o M agi s t r at e J udg e St i c kne y w hoN o. 09- 40431

4 se ntPl ai nt i f

f ade t ail e d q ue s t i o nnair e o n Augus t1 , 2 00 8 s e e ki ng a d d itio n a l in fo r m a tio n a b o u t P la in tiff ’ s a lle g a tio n s . S u b s e q u e n tly an d w i t h ou tr espon di n g t o th e questi on n ai re, Plai n t if f w i t h drew h i s requ estford i scovery an d t h at w it h draw alw as fil ed on A u gu st 15, 2008. I n Se pt e m be r 20 08 , af t e r f i l i ng t he pr e s e nt s u i t , D r ak e petit i on ed the U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rtf or th e W est ern D i st ri ct o f Te xa s –Aus t i n Divi s i o n f o rpe r m i s s i o n t o t ak e t he or alde po s i t i o ns of H ovnat ani an and A ndre w s, c l ai m i n g h e “ ant i c i pat ed” be i ng a pa r t y t o al awsu i ta ga i ns tAndr e w s a nd h e ra t t o r ne ys f o rf r aud , po s s ibl e c o ns pir ac y t o c o m m i t f r aud , l ibe l/ s l and e r , c o ns um e rf r aud , d e c e p t iv e t r a d e p r a c t i c e s , a n do t h e rs i mi l a rv i o l a t i o n s o f c iv i ll a w. In its o r d e rd is m is s in gD r a k e ’ s ca s e , th e co u r t s ta te d“E s s e n tia lly [D r a k e ] a p p e a r s to b e a t t e m p t in gto c ir c u m v e n tth e s t a t e c o u r t ’s d e te r m in a tio n th a t h e is av e x a tio u s litig a n t.” Ase co n da cc id e n t is a lso in v o lve din t h is law su it. P la in tiff c la im s t h a t h e w a s in v o lv e din a s e c o n da c c id e n t o n M a y3 1 , 2 0 0 5 in D al l as C ou n t y, T exas. Plai n t if f cl aim s th at an en t i t y cal l ed
“ T ravel ers” , T eresa G ray, Sh an n on S m i t h erm an a n d the l aw f i rm of B yrne M ead& Sm i t h erm an , t h e ou t si de coun selh i red by T ravel ers, violatedh i s civilri gh ts w h en the y d en i edh i s c la im for b en efits u n d er an a u tom ob i l e poli cyh e claim s w a s i ssu edbyT ra ve l ers. S t. P a ulTrave l er s I nsur anceC o. has answ er ed i n t hi s l aw sui t, a lth o u g h it cla im s th a t it is n o t th e T r a v e le r s e n tit yre fe r e n c e din P la in tiff

’ s co m p la in t. In ad di t i on t o t h e entit i es m en t i on ed ab ove, P l ai n t if f al l eges t hatD ef

endant s H ar t f

or d I nsur anceC o. , L i saH ul l , M ar k Ti l l m an of l aw f i rm Sed gw i ck, D et ert , M organ & A rnol d are som eh ow i n volvedi n hi s c l ai m s a ga ins tLibe rty M ut ualAut o m ot ive Insuran ce C o. H e cl ai m s th at Led i n e Sa n chez an d T eresa G ray are som eh ow i nvo lve d i n hi s c l ai m s a ga i ns tAl i c e A ndr e w s , J udg e H o f fm an, Jus t i c e Fr anc i s , a nd J us t i c e M o s e l e y. H e c l ai m s t hatD e fe nda nt Joan B azar vi ol ated H IPAA by givi n g ou t h i s persona li n f orm ati on t o Ab b a s s Se k h a v a tb e c a u s e o f h i s r a c e . F i n a l l y , P l a i n t if f c l a i ms t h at Jess i ca Sett l er andJe ssi ca Stet t l er are att orneys som eh ow i nvol ved in one o f

t he c as e s i n whi c h Pl ai nt if f w as de c l ar e d a ve xa ti ou s l i ti ga n t. R epo r t and R ec om m endat i on of U ni t ed St at es M agi st r at e Judge, at2–4 (c ita tio n s o m itt e d).N o. 09- 40431

5 II. Inrev i ew i n g th e facts, the M a gistrate J u d ge d ivid edth e d efen d a n ts i n to t hr e e c at e go r i e s : Andr e w s , t he J udg e s , and allof t he r e m ai ni ng de fe nda nt s . The M agis t rat e Ju dg e rec om m en dedt h e cl ai m s be di sm i ssed againsteach category of defen da n tf

or th e f ol l ow i n g reasons.

A. Th e M agi st r at e J udge r ec om m ended the c l ai m agai nstA ndre w s be di sm i ssed un der t h e R o o ke r - Fe l dm an d o c tr in e . S ee R ooker v. Fi d el i ty TrustCo. , 2 6 3 U .S . 4 1 3 (1 9 2 3 ); D i s t r i c tof Col um bi a Co ur tof

Appe alsv . Fe l dm an , 4 60 U

. S. 462 ( 198 3)

. In 200 5, t h e U

. S

. S u prem e C ou rt h el d th at ap pl i cat i on of t h e R ookerFe l dm an doct ri n e “i s c on f i n ed to cases . . . broug h tby st ate- court l osers
c o m pl ai ni ng o f

i nj ur i e s c aus e d b y s t at e - c o ur tj udg m e nt s r e nde r e d b e f o r e t he di s t r i c tc o ur tpr o c e e di ngs c o m m e nc e d a nd i nvit i ng di s t r i c tc o ur tr e vi e w a nd rejecti on o f th ose ju d gm en ts. ” Exxo n Mo bi l Cor p. v . SaudiBas i cI

ndus

. Cor

p. , 5 4 4 U .S . 2 8 0 , 2 8 4 (2 0 0 5 ). Th i s c ase does notm ee tt he nar r ow s etof c as es go ver ned by R ookerFe l dm an . Inh i s p rese n t com p l a i n t, D ra k e is n o t in viti n g th e d i stri ct cou rt t o
r e v ie w a n dreje c t t h e ju d g m e n t o f t h e T e x a s s ta te co u r ts
. In s te a d , D r a k e is
s e e k in g d a m a g e s fo r A n d r e w s ’ a lle g e d ly fr a u d u le n t st a te m e n ts
. T h u s , R ookerFe l dm an i s i n ap pl i cabl e i n t h i s c ase. Thou gh R o o ke r - Fe l dm an is in a p p lic a b le , w e fin d th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id
n oterri n di sm i ssi n g D rake’ s c l ai m aga i n st A n drew s as t h e courtl acked subj ect
m a tter j u ri sd i cti on . D ra k e asse rts su bj ect m a tter j u ri sd i cti on ba sed on dive rsity a n d4 2 U. S

. C. § § 1 9 8 1 a n d1 9 8 3
. No n e o f t h e s e a r e a p p l i c a b l e . Dr a k e a nd A n d r e w s a r e b o th T e x a s d o m ic ilia r ie s , th u s th e r e is n o d iv e r s ityju r is d ic tio n . Sec

. 1981 i s i nappl i c abl e, am ong o t herr eas ons , be c ause D r ake fai l ed t o a l l ege
an y fact s th at i n di cat e A n drew s i n t en dedto d i scr i m i n ate ag ai n sthi m based onN o. 09- 40431

6 h is ra c e . S ee A rguel lo v. Con oco, I n c. , 330 F. 3d 355, 358 ( 5t h C i r . 2003)

. Fi nal l y, § 198 3 i s i n ap pl i cabl e t o A n dr e w s b e ca u se A n drew s i s not a st ate act or. T h ere f o r e , t hi s c o ur tl ac ks s ubj e c tm at t e rj ur i s di c t i o n o ve rt he c l ai m a ga i n st A n drew s.
B. Th e M agi st r at e J ud ge re c om m ended the c l ai m s agai nstt he Judges be di sm i ssed based on j u di ci ali m m u n i t y. D rake argu es th e Ju dg es are n otentit l ed t o j udi c i ali m m uni t y be c ause t hei rac t i ons w er e o ut si de the s c ope of t hei rj udi c i al
em pl oym ent
. W e f i nd no m er i tt o D rake’ s ar gum ent
. Absolut e j udi c i al i m m unity ex ten d s t o a l lj udi c i alac t s w hi c h ar e no tper f or m ed i n t he c l ear
a b s e n c e o f a ll ju r is d ic tio n . St ump v . Sparkm an , 435 U

. S. 349 ( 19 78 )

. Applyi ng t h e Adam sv . McIlhanyfa c to r s to th is ca s e , a s th e M a g is tr a te J u d g e d i d , i tis
c le a rth a t t h e a c ts p e r fo r m e db yt h e J u d g e s w e r e ju d ic ia l a c ts
. S ee 764 F. 2d 294, 297 ( 5t h C i r . 1985)

. M or eo ver , none o f t hes e a c t i ons w er e pe r f or m ed i n t he c l ear ab s e nc e o f

a l lj ur i s di c t i o n.
C. The M agis t r at e J udg e r e c o m m e nde d the c l ai m s a ga i ns tt he r e m ai ni ng defenda n t s be di sm i ssed becau se of D rake’ s fai l u re t o st ate a basi s f or s u bj ect
m a tter j u ri sd i cti on . D ra k e asse rts su bj ect m a tter j u ri sd i cti on ba sed on dive rsity an d 42 U

. S. C. § § 1 98 1, 1 98 3, 1 98 5, a nd 1 98 6. N o ne o f t he s e g r antt hi s c o urt
s u bje c t m a tt e rju r is d ic tio n . D r ak e ha s no ta l l e ge d the do m i c i l e o f a l lo f t he r e m ai ni ng de fe nda nt s . The d efen d a n ts w h ose do m i ci l e D ra k e h a s all eg edare n ot d ive rse. A s su ch , dive rsity ju r is d ic tio n is in a p p lic a b le

. Ju ri sdi ct i on un der t h e C ivi lR i gh t s s t atutes i s al so i n ap pl i cabl e. N on e of t h e rem ai n i n g defenda n t s are st ate act ors, t h eref ore t h ey m ay not be sued un derN o. 09- 40431

7 § 1 983
. D ra ke ha s fail e d t o a l l e gea ny fac t s t hats upp o r thi s b e l i e f t hatt he defe nda nt s e nga ge d i n t he i rc o nduc tb e c aus e o f hi s r ac e , ar e quir e m e ntund er § § 1 9 8 1 a n d1 9 8 5
. S eeA rg u ello , 3 3 0 F .3 da t 3 5 8 ; McL el lan v. Mi ssissi pp iPow er & L igh tCo. , 5 4 5 F .2 d9 1 9 , 9 2 3 (5 th C ir . 1 9 7 7 ). T h is co u r t h a s h e ldth a t a v a lid § 1 9 8 5 c la im is a p r e r e q u is ite to a§ 1 9 8 6 cla im

. B ryan v. C i ty of Mad i son , 213 F

. 3 d2 6 7 , 2 7 6 ( 5 t h C i r . 2 0 0 0 )

. B e c a u s e Dr a k e d o e s n o th a v e av a l i d§ 1 9 8 5 c l a i m, h e d o e s n o th a v e av a l i d§ 1 9 8 6 c l a i m.
III. In ad di t i on t o di sm i ssi n g al lcl ai m s agai n stt h e defen da n t s, t h e di st ri ct court den i ed as m ootD rake’ s M ot i on s f or E vi den t i ary H eari n gs. Th e di st ri ct
c our tal sodeni ed D r ake’ s M ot i on f or D efaul t Judgm ent as t o de fendant s B azar andSe kha va tb e c au s eb o thd e f e n d a nt s f

i l e d m o t i o ns w i t hi n da ys o f b e i ng s e rve d. W e f i n d the di st ri ctcourtdi d n oterri n den yi n g t h ese m ot i on s. F in a lly , th e d istr ict co u r td e n iedth e d e fen d a n ts’ M o tion s fo r E n tryof a V exa t i o us Lit i g a ntOr d e r . W e f i ndt hed i s t r i c tc o ur td i dn o ta b us e it s b r oad d is c r e tio n ind e n y in gth is m o tio n .
CO NCL US I ON F or th e reasons st ated abov e, w e A F F IR M t h e ju dg m en tof t h e di st ri ct
cou rt.