Olali v. Johnson

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
SHAWN OLALI,
Plaintiff,
v.
PAUL JOHNSON,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 4:26-cv-125-JDK-KNM
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Shawn Olali initiated this lawsuit against District Attorney Paul
Johnson pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
Docket No. 1. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole
Mitchell in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report
recommending that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Docket No. 10. Plaintiff filed written objections. Docket No. 16.
The Court reviews objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation de
novo. FED. R. CIV. P. 72; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“A judge of the court shall make a de
novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed finding and
recommendation to which objection is made.”). In conducting a de novo review, the
Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the
law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en
banc), superseded by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file
objections from ten to fourteen days).
Case 4:26-cv-00125-JDK-KNM Document 19 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Here, Plaintiff is representing himself in a pending state criminal proceeding
in Denton County, Texas. He complains that the prosecutor has not produced all
discovery to him pursuant to Section 39.14(d) of the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure, which states that “[i]n the case of a pro se defendant, if the court
orders the state to produce and permit the inspection of a document, item, or
information under this subsection, the state shall permit the pro se defendant to
inspect and review the document, item, or information but is not required to allow
electronic duplication as described in Subsection (a).” See Docket No. 1 ¶ 8.
Plaintiff submits that the rule is unconstitutional and asks the Court to order
Defendant to produce all discovery. Id. ¶ 10.
Applying Younger abstention, the Report recommends dismissal of the
complaint without prejudice pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h)(3). Docket No. 10 at 3.
The Report primarily recommends dismissal because there is a pending state
criminal proceeding. See Docket No. 10. Plaintiff asserts that the Report fails to
consider exceptions to Younger abstention, including extraordinary circumstances.
Docket No. 16 at 5. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that the state trial court is bound
by precedent to deny his requests for relief and is therefore incapable of fairly
adjudicating his claims. Id.
The discretionary doctrine of federal court abstention, recognized in Younger
v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746 (1971), “is generally deemed appropriate where
assumption of jurisdiction by a federal court would interfere with pending state
proceedings, whether of criminal, civil, or even administrative character.” Word of
Case 4:26-cv-00125-JDK-KNM Document 19 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
Faith Outreach Center Church, Inc. v. Morales, 986 F.2d 962, 966 (5th Cir. 1993). The
doctrine “remains controlling today, with particular application to interventions into
state criminal procedures.” Daves v. Dallas County, Texas, 64 F.4th 616, 625 (5th
Cir. 2023) (en banc), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 548 (2024). Younger abstention is
required where: (1) the federal proceeding would interfere with an ongoing state
judicial proceeding; (2) the state has an important interest in regulating the subject
matter of the claim; and (3) the plaintiff has an adequate opportunity in the state
proceedings to raise constitutional challenges. Id. (quoting Bice v. La. Pub. Def. Bd.,
677 F.3d 712, 716 (5th Cir. 2012).
Any ruling in federal court concerning whether Plaintiff should receive
electronic duplication of discovery materials would interfere with any contrary
rulings made in the state court proceeding. Additionally, the state has an important
interest in regulating the subject matter because “states have a vital interest in
regulating their pretrial criminal procedures.” Daves, 64 F.4th at n. 21. Finally, the
Court considers whether there is an available state proceeding to present the
constitutional challenges. Id. at 625; Little v. Doguet, 71 F.4th 340, 346 (5th Cir.
2023), cert. denied, 144 U.S. 1001 (2024). “Those procedures are adequate if they
provide ‘an opportunity to raise federal claims in the course of state proceedings.’”
Little, 71 F.4th at 347 (quoting Daves, 64 F.4th at 629). Having an opportunity to
raise those claims does not require an opportunity to litigate constitutional claims
“in” the state proceeding nor does it require an immediate opportunity to resolve
those constitutional challenges. See id. “[S]tate remedies are inadequate only where
Case 4:26-cv-00125-JDK-KNM Document 19 Filed 02/18/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
‘state law clearly bars the interposition of the constitutional claims.’” Id. (emphasis
in original); Daves, 64 F.4th at 632. “‘Texas state court procedures do not clearly bar
the raising of’ federal constitutional challenges to a state system.” Id. at 348; Daves,
64 F.4th at 632. Plaintiff’s assertion that the state court will follow precedent and
rule against him does not rise to the level of exceptional circumstances nor bar him
from raising a federal constitutional challenge in the state system. All three
abstention conditions are satisfied and abstention is appropriate.
Having conducted a de novo review of the written objections filed by Plaintiff
in response to the Report and Recommendation, the Court concludes that the findings
and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and Plaintiff’s objections are
without merit. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 10) is ADOPTED. It is ORDERED that
this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of
___________________________________
JEREMY D. KERNODLE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18th	February, 2026.
Case 4:26-cv-00125-JDK-KNM Document 19 Filed 02/18/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>