Rollins v. Carter, No. 22-20365 (5th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-20365 Document: 00516521528 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ___________ FILED October 25, 2022 No. 22-20365 ___________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Randall E. Rollins, Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Eric Carter, In Individual and Official Capacity; Kathleen Stone, In Individual and Official Capacity; State of Texas; Harris County; Does 1-100, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:22-CV-1132 ______________________________ Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* This appeal presents a straightforward question of sovereign immunity. Here, Plaintiff-Appellant Randall Rollins brings claims against the State of Texas, Harris County, two justices of the peace in Harris County, * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 22-20365 Document: 00516521528 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/25/2022 No. 22-20365 and numerous Does. Rollins alleges that Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 500.9 is unconstitutional because it gives justices discretion to permit or prohibit discovery. The district court faithfully applied the law when it correctly dismissed Rollins’s claims. Our colleagues recognized the same in a nearly identical case brought by Rollins against similar parties. See Rollins v. Texas, Case No. 21-20482. Rollins notes that the issues raised in this appeal were raised in that one, conceding that “[i]f the Court totally affirms in appeal No. 21-20482, then Appellant [Rollins] requests this appeal No. 22-20365 be likewise totally affirmed, since further action on nearly[]identical cases would be rendered superfluous.” The Defendants-Appellees agree. We therefore affirm the district court’s thorough decision, and deny Rollins’ motion to expedite the ruling on appeal as unnecessary. Rollins’ motion for leave to supplement the record with two appendices is also denied, because neither of the proposed materials need be entered into the record for this court’s reference. 1 The district court’s holding is AFFIRMED, and Rollins’s motions before this court are DENIED as unnecessary. 1 Appendix A is a copy of a law review article by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Against Sovereign Immunity, 53 STAN. L. REV. 1201 (2001). Appendix B includes excerpts of McDonald & Carlson Texas Civil Practice (2d ed.). 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.
