Karen McPeters v. Frederick Edwards, et al, No. 11-20373 (5th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-20373 Document: 00511790108 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED March 15, 2012 No. 11-20373 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk KAREN McPETERS, individually, and on behalf of those individuals, persons and entities who are similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. THE HONORABLE FREDERICK E. EDWARDS, Individually and in His Capacity as the District Judge of the 9th District Court Montgomery County, Texas; BARBARA GLADDEN ADAMICK, Individually and as The District Court Clerk of Montgomery County, Texas; MONTGOMERY COUNTY, TEXAS; and REED ELSEVIER, INC. d/b/a LexisNexis Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:10-cv-01103 Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge:* Plaintiff-Appellant Karen McPeters appeals the district court s dismissal of her suit against Defendants-Appellees the Honorable Frederick Edwards, Barbara Adamick, Montgomery County, and Reed Elsevier, doing business as * Pursuant to FIFTH CIRCUIT RULE 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in FIFTH CIRCUIT RULE 47.5.4. Case: 11-20373 Document: 00511790108 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2012 No. 11-20373 LexisNexis. Judge Edwards designated an employment discrimination suit filed by McPeters as an electronic filing ( e-file ) case, thereby requiring that she pay certain fees imposed by LexisNexis in order to file pleadings and other court documents electronically. In the district court, McPeters sought to have the efiling fees declared unconstitutional as denying her access to the courts, as well as in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ( RICO ), 18 U.S.C. ยงยง 1961-68. She also brought various state and common-law claims, over which the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction once it had dismissed her constitutional and federal claims. After considering the record, the parties briefs and the arguments contained therein, as well as entertaining oral argument, this Court is of the firm commitment that no reversible error has been shown. The ruling of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
