Daniels v. Torrez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
CHUCK F. DANIELS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
VERONICA TORREZ,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO
4:25-cv-01219
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Chuck F. Daniels proceeds here pro se. He
sued Defendant Veronica Torrez for violations of the First
Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, and of analogous provisions of the Texas
Constitution. Dkt 1 at ¶¶13–22. These claims relate to
Defendant’s issuing an order for commitment against
Plaintiff for contempt of court. Id at ¶5. Defendant filed a
motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity, judicial
immunity, and failure to state a claim. Dkt 5.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Christina A. Bryan. Dkt 6. She issued a
Memorandum and Recommendation recommending that
the claims be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rules
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Dkt 10.
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 19, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-01219 Document 12 Filed on 12/12/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
Plaintiff filed objections. Dkt 11. He specifically objects
that the Memorandum and Recommendation misapplies
the doctrines of sovereign immunity, judicial immunity,
and standing. Id at 1–2. Further, he objects that it
improperly resolves the factual dispute of whether the
relevant commitment order was signed. Dkt 3.
On de novo review and determination, the objections
lack merit. Plaintiff argues the Memorandum and
Recommendation “fails to apply the Ex Parte Young
doctrine.” But Ex Parte Young serves as a narrow exception
to sovereign immunity that allows suits for prospective
injunctive relief against officers in their official capacity.
See 209 US 123 (1908). It doesn’t apply where, as here, a
Plaintiff fails to allege an ongoing constitutional violation.
See NiGen Biotech, LLC v Paxton, 804 F3d 389, 394 (5th
Cir 2015). Plaintiff also argues that judicial immunity
doesn’t apply because Defendant acted in clear absence of
jurisdiction through issuing an unsigned order. Even
assuming such allegation to be true, this isn’t an act clearly
outside of her jurisdiction. As to standing for injunctive and
declaratory relief, Plaintiff’s claim that he faces “exposure”
to the same judge fails to show a real and immediate threat
of repeated injury. And Plaintiff is patently incorrect in
asserting that the Memorandum and Recommendation
resolved the question of whether the relevant order was
signed. See Dkt 10 at 13: “Signed or unsigned, Defendant’s
Order of Commitment, at most, exceeded her jurisdiction,
but was not made in a complete absence of jurisdiction.”
No clear error otherwise appears upon review and
consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation,
the record, and the applicable law.
The objections by Plaintiff Chuck F. Daniels to the
Memorandum and Recommendation of the Magistrate
Judge are OVERRULED. Dkt 11.
Case 4:25-cv-01219 Document 12 Filed on 12/12/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
The Memorandum and Recommendation is ADOPTED as
the Memorandum and Order of this Court. Dkt 10.
The motion by Defendant Veronica Torrez to dismiss is
GRANTED. Dkt 5.
This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
This is a FINAL JUDGMENT.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on December 12, 2025, at Houston, Texas.
___________________________
Hon. Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-01219 Document 12 Filed on 12/12/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 3