1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION

KARL LYNN McGEE §

(aka Karl Shackelford)

v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:23cv205

OFFICER HAYDEN, ET AL. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Plaintiff Karl McGee, also known as Karl Shackelford, proceeding pro se,filed this civil 

rights lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas under 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaining of alleged 

deprivations of his constitutional rights. The lawsuit was referred to the undersigned United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order forthe Adoption 

of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.

I. The Plaintiff’s Complaint

Plaintiff states that on February 3, 2023, he was arrested for violating an emergency 

protective order when he drove up to Lindsey Park in Tyler to use the restroom when the park was 

closed. He advised the police officer that he had an affidavit of non-prosecution, but was told that 

the judge would have to sign off on it.

In what appears to be a different arrest, Plaintiff states that on or around February 23, 2023, 

he went to Lindale, Texas to visit a person named Tony McGee. They left there and went to an 

address in Flint, Texas. He was leaving there when he was pulled over by a Smith County sheriff’s 

deputy. The deputy placed him under arrest and took him to jail on charges of family violence.

Plaintiff attaches a copy of a “request for magistrate’s emergency protective order,” dated 

February 3, 2023,signed by Deputy B. Hayden, asking that Plaintiff be prohibited from committing 

family violence, stalking, or communicating in a threatening manner with two named persons, 

Vickey Seaton-Nolen and Victoria Seaton, or from going within 200 yards of the address in Flint.

Case 6:23-cv-00205-JDK-KNM Document 5 Filed 05/31/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 3
2

Plaintiff next attaches a copy of the order signed by the justice of the peace on February 4 granting 

the request for an emergency protective order, and a statutory warning,signed by Plaintiff, advising 

him of the penalties for violating the protective order. (Docket no. 2, pp. 11-16). Plaintiff also 

attaches a copy of a purported “affidavit of non-prosecution,” written in his handwriting, saying “I 

Vickey Seaton-Nolen Victory [sic] Seaton has not been threaten [sic] to sign this non-prosecution 

for on sight warrant dated 2-5-2023 for Karl Lynn McGee aka Karl Lynn Shackelford.” The 

affidavit is dated February 13, 2023, and signed in a different handwriting reading “Vickey SeatonNolen.”

For relief, Plaintiff asksfor a Spears hearing, waiver ofthe filing fee, a writ of habeas corpus, 

expungement of the family violence and protection order, dismissal and expunging of the charges 

against him, and monetary compensation.

II. Discussion

The Plaintiff Karl McGee, under his alternate name of Karl Shackelford, has a long history 

of filing meritless cases. Court recordsshow that the Northern District of Texas hassanctioned him 

in the amount of $100.00 in three separate and consecutive cases and barred him from filing any 

more cases until this sanction is satisfied. Shackelford v. Thaler, civil action no. 2:10cv249 

(N.D.Tex., dismissed January 10, 2011); Shackelford v. Thaler, civil action no. 2:10cv250 

(N.D.Tex., dismissed January 10, 2011); Shackelford v. Thaler, civil action no. 2:10cv251 

(N.D.Tex., dismissed January 10, 2011). The Eastern District of Texas honors sanctions imposed 

by other federal district courts in the State of Texas. General Order No. 94-6 (E.D.Tex., February 

2, 1994); Balawajder v. Scott, 160 F.3d 1066, 1068 (5th Cir. 1998) (district court does not abuse its 

discretion in honoring sanctions imposed by other district courts).

In addition, this Court has sanctioned Plaintiff an additional $100.00 and also barred him 

from filing any further cases until the sanctions imposed upon him are satisfied. Shackelford v. 

Jenkins, et al., civil action no. 6:12cv923 (E.D.Tex., January 11, 2013, appeal dismissed). None of 

the above sanctions have been satisfied, and Plaintiff’s lawsuit may be dismissed on this basis.

Case 6:23-cv-00205-JDK-KNM Document 5 Filed 05/31/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 4
3

RECOMMENDATION

It is accordingly recommended that the above-styled lawsuit be dismissed with prejudice as 

to the refiling of another civil action raising the same claims as herein presented, but without 

prejudice asto itsrefiling upon showing proof ofsatisfaction of allsanctionsimposed upon Plaintiff 

in any federal court which may have done so, including but not limited to the Northern and Eastern 

Districts of Texas.

A copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendationsshall be served on all partiesin 

the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, and 

recommendationsmustfile specificwritten objectionswithin 14 days after being served with a copy.

In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation 

to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the Magistrate 

Judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation where the disputed determination is 

found. An objection which merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the 

Magistrate Judge is not specific, and the district court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or 

general objections. See Battle v. United States Parole Commission, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 

1987).

Failure to file specific written objections will bar the objecting party from appealing the 

factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge which are accepted and adopted by 

the district court except upon grounds of plain error. Duarte v. City of Lewisville, 858 F.3d 348, 352 

(5th Cir. 2017).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 31st day of May, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00205-JDK-KNM Document 5 Filed 05/31/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 5