1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

DAVID LAVORD DODD

vs.

CLEARWATER BAY PROPERTY 

OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

§

§ CASE NO. 6:23-cv-00254-JDK-KNM

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

§

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the above-styled lawsuit on May 

15, 2023. For the reasons below, the Court recommends that the complaint be DISMISSED with 

prejudice.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed two previous lawsuits in this Court against this Defendant. See Dodd v. 

Clearwater Bay Property Owners Association, Inc., Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-767-KNM (“the 

2014 case”); and Dodd v. Clearwater Bay Property Owners Association, Inc., et al., Civil Action 

No. 6:18-cv-393-RWS-JDL (“the 2018 case”). The allegations asserted in this case are the same

allegations that were asserted in those previous cases concerning a 2013 agreement to purchase

property. In the complaint, Plaintiff states that he seeks to re-file his 2014 lawsuit. ECF 1, at *4. 

The 2014 lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice on November 21, 2016 for failure to prosecute. 

More than nineteen months later, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on July 9, 2018. The Fifth 

Circuit dismissed the appeal as untimely. Plaintiff then filed the 2018 lawsuit, attempting to reassert his claims. The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant with prejudice on 

Case 6:23-cv-00254-JDK-KNM Document 9 Filed 08/29/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 29
2

October 2, 2018 as time-barred. Plaintiff appealed and the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal on 

February 19, 2019 following Plaintiff’s failure to file a brief. At that point, Plaintiff filed a motion 

in the 2014 case on July 18, 2022 seeking to reopen the case, which was denied. Undeterred, 

Plaintiff filed the present lawsuit, again seeking to re-file his claims.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), when a plaintiff seeks in forma pauperis status, the 

Court shall dismiss the case if the Court determines that the action is either: (1) frivolous or 

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief 

against a defendant who is immune from such relief. A plaintiff cannot pursue a second lawsuit 

that arises from the same operative facts as those raised and adjudicated, or that could have been 

adjudicated, in a prior lawsuit. See Ocean Drilling & Exploration Co., Inc. v. Mont Boat Rental 

Services, Inc., 799 F.2d 213, 216–17 (5th Cir. 1986); Nilsen v. City of Moss Point, Mississippi, 701 

F.2d 556, 560 (5th Cir. 1983) (en banc). 

ANALYSIS

The complaint submitted by Plaintiff in this case re-asserts allegations that were previously 

asserted in Plaintiff’s prior lawsuits. Plaintiff expressly states that he is seeking to re-file and reassert his prior claims, despite previous orders stating that he cannot do so. The issue of whether 

Plaintiff can pursue his claims was squarely decided in the 2018 case and in the order denying his 

motion for relief from judgment in 2014 case. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res 

judicata and do not state a claim upon which relief may be granted. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).

RECOMMENDATION

It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice as 

barred by the doctrine of res judicata pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Case 6:23-cv-00254-JDK-KNM Document 9 Filed 08/29/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 30
3

Within fourteen days after receipt of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve and 

file written objections to the findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b). Written objections shall not exceed eight pages. Local Rule CV-72(c).

A party’s failure to file written objections to the findings, conclusions and 

recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen days after service shall bar that party 

from de novo review by the district judge of those findings, conclusions and recommendations 

and, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed 

factual findings and legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the district court. Douglass v. 

United Servs. Auto. Assn., 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir.1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on 

other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen 

days). 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 29th day of August, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00254-JDK-KNM Document 9 Filed 08/29/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 31