Woodson v. Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC et al The Clerk shall reject all submissions from Woodson unless explicitly authorized.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Joshua Deanthony Woodson,
Plaintiff,
v.
Lakeview 	Loan 	Servicing, 	LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:25-cv-04700
ORDER ON PROLIFERATE FILINGS AND OTHER ISSUES
At the March 20, 2026 initial conference, the undersigned explained that
Plaintiff Joshua DeAnthony Woodson has bombarded the Court and the other
parties with dozens of filings that are redundant, improper, or otherwise
meritless. Many of his submissions are invalid or improper on their face. Just
as examples, Woodson filed a “Notice Regarding Potential Scope of Class
Action,” Dkt. 75, even though this is not a class-action case. He filed a motion
essentially asking for a blank check to correct any defective filing that he may
submit in the future, and for a categorical exemption from the requirement
that he confer with other parties. 	See Dkt. 47. 	Woodson even filed a “notice”
accusing one of defendant’s attorneys of engaging in “unauthorized practice of
law,” Dkt. 62, despite Woodson’s own recognition that the attorney is duly
licensed to practice in this State, see id. at 1, and despite this Court’s records
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 20, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-04700 Document 91 Filed 03/20/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2
confirming that the attorney has been admitted to practice in this Court
(indeed, the attorney otherwise could not have even filed documents in this
case). 	And Woodson has filed motions for sanctions that merely dispute
Defendants’ positions on Woodson’s claims or quibble with wholly immaterial
information. 	See, e.g., Dkt. 24; Dkt. 41 at 2. 	Several times, Woodson filed a
slew of documents, only to withdraw or supersede them—including after
Defendants incurred the expense of responding to some of them. See, e.g., Dkt.
30 (detailing five such submissions); Dkt. 61 (withdrawing four submissions,
Dkt. 24, 41, 29, and 50). This must stop.
Indeed, 	even 	excluding 	the 	numerous 	motions 	that 	this 	Court 	has
already resolved, the docket reflects that Woodson has filed twenty-seven
other motions and related supplements, notices, and requests for relief during
the brief pendency of this case. A few of those motions are resolved below, and
other others will be addressed via a separate opinion. 	Regardless, to prevent
Woodson’s continued unnecessary and improper proliferation of filings on the
docket that have created unjustifiable burdens on Defendants and on this
Court, Woodson is hereby barred from submitting any new filings without prior
permission from this Court. And this Court will not allow Woodson to submit
any new filings that revisit issues addressed in or that purport to supplement
his earlier filings.
Case 4:25-cv-04700 Document 91 Filed 03/20/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

3
As for Woodson’s current motions that remain outstanding—they are too
numerous to list individually here—Defendants’ response deadlines are stayed
until the Court requests a response.
Woodson’s 	motion 	to 	reconsider 	denial 	of 	e-filing 	privileges,
Dkt. 46. This Court has already denied Woodson’s original motion for leave to
e-file. 	Dkt. 30 at 3-4. 	Woodson’s submission of an egregious number of
unnecessary or baseless filings even without access to e-filing only reinforces
why he should not be allowed to e-file. 	His request for reconsideration is
therefore DENIED.
Woodson’s requests for emergency or expedited relief. On March 2,
2026, 	the 	undersigned 	issued 	an 	opinion 	recommending 	that 	Woodson’s
request for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to block
the scheduled March 3, 2026 foreclosure sale be denied, for a host of reasons.
See Dkt. 73 (Memorandum and Recommendation). 	Although Woodson filed
objections, see Dkt. 81 (March 5, 2026), by then the foreclosure sale had already
occurred. Both before and after that date, Woodson filed a series of documents
asking for “emergency” relief to unwind the foreclosure sale. See Dkts. 77, 78,
79, 82, 84, 85, 89; see also Dkt. 80 (“Supplemental Notice” related to other
foregoing filings); Dkt. 86 (“Memorandum”); Dkt. 90 (affidavit).
There can be no “emergency” at this point. 	Woodson never obtained
relief that would have prevented the foreclosure sale, and that request is now
Case 4:25-cv-04700 Document 91 Filed 03/20/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4
moot. See, e.g., Christopher Village, Ltd. P’ship v. Retsinas, 190 F.3d 310, 314-
15 (5th Cir. 1999) (holding a foreclosure sale “effectively moot[s]” a plaintiff’s
request “for an injunction ... because of th[e] court’s inability to fashion
adequate relief”). Even if Woodson could ultimately show that the foreclosure
sale was invalid, that would simply comprise one aspect of the relief he seeks
in this suit and would be addressed alongside his request for damages.
There is no good cause for expedited discovery, much less to revisit the
Court’s previous denial of Woodson’s similar request. 	See Dkt. 48 (December
15, 2025 renewed request for expedited discovery); Dkt. 38 (December 12, 2025
order denying Woodson’s request for expedited discovery, Dkt. 27). 	Nor is
Woodson entitled to expedited resolution of any relief he seeks. 	His requests
for relief on an emergency or expedited basis are therefore denied.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that
(a) 	Woodson is barred from submitting new or supplemental
filings addressing the issues that he has already raised,
including any new requests or arguments supporting emergency
relief concerning the foreclosure sale, and
(b) 	Woodson 	cannot 	submit 	any 	new 	notice, 	supplement,
motion, or other request for relief without first obtaining
the Court’s permission. 	To obtain permission, Woodson must
first confer with the opposing parties and obtain their position on
the matter 1 and then send (not file) a letter (maximum two pages)
1 It is not enough to email or leave a voice message for counsel on the day of filing and
state that no response was received.
Case 4:25-cv-04700 Document 91 Filed 03/20/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5
to the undersigned’s case manager explaining why he seeks leave
to submit the filing. Failure to comply with this directive will
result in the immediate striking of the unauthorized filing
and could result in further sanctions that include dismissal
of all claims; and
(c) 	The clerk of court is directed to reject all submissions from
Woodson unless this Court has explicitly authorized the
filing.
It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ response deadlines to any of
Woodson’s motions to which they have yet to respond are hereby STAYED
unless and until the Court requests a response.
It is further ORDERED that Woodson’s motion to reconsider the denial
of e-filing privileges and for leave to file electronically (Dkt. 46) is denied.
It is further ORDERED that Woodson’s request for expedited discovery
(Dkt. 48) and for “emergency” resolution of his various requests for relief
(Dkts. 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 89, 90) are DENIED.
Signed on March 20, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
__________________________________
Yvonne Y. Ho
United States Magistrate Judge
, Texass..
_______________________________________
ne Y	Y	Y. H	H	Ho
ed S	S	Stttates Magistrate Judge
Case 4:25-cv-04700 Document 91 Filed 03/20/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5