Arredondo v. Holguin et al

LINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
APRIL LANORE ARREDONDO,
Plaintiff,
No. 5:25-CV-222-H
JUDGE HOLGUIN, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE
TTIE PLAINTIFF' BJECTI
Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations (FCR) of
United States Magistrate Judge Amanda 'Amy' R. Burch. Dkt. No. 10. Judge Burch
recommends denying pro se plaintiff April Lanore Arredondo's motion for a temporary
resnaining order. Id. at l;saeDkt. No.7. Through her motion, Arredondo seek an order
enjoining two Dawson County courts to stay criminal proceedings until this Court can
resolve her constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. $ 1983. ,See Dkt. No. 7 at 3. Arredondo
timely objected to the FCR. Dkt. No. 18.
The Court ovemrles the objections and adopts the FCR in full. Arredondo clarifies
that the underlying state criminal charges were dismissed, so there is no ongoing proceeding
for the Court to enjoin. And any request to enjoin future state-court proceedings lacks
merit. Accordingly, the Court denies Arredondo's motion for TRO without prejudice to her
right to request injunctive reliefshould circumstances change.
Case 5:25-cv-00222-H-BV Document 24 Filed 03/06/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID <pageID>

1. Background
A. Factual Background and Procedural History
On October 17,2025, Arredondo sued several Dawson County officials, allegtng
constitutional violations stemming from a Eaffic stop in March 2024. See Dkt. No. 1 Per
the Coun's standing orders, the case was referred to Judge Burch. Dkt. No. 2.
Soon after filing her complaint, Arredondo moved for a TRO. Dk. No. 7. She asks
the Court to enjoin the l06th Judicial District Court of Dawson County and the Lamesa
Municipal Court from carrying out any criminal proceedings against her while this federal
action is ongoing. Id. at3. The motion lists three cause numbers and expressly requests that
the District Court be restrained "from continuing or initiating any proceedings in [those]
cause numbers, pending further review. " Id. at I , 3 .
Judge Burch issued an FCR recommending that the Court deny Arredondo's motion
for TRO without prejudice. Dkt. No. 10. Arredondo objected to the FCR, asking the Court
to "deny the recommendation" and aUow her to "proceed with her civil righs claims."
Dkt. No. 18 at 3. The objection is ripe for review.
B. Judge Burch's FCR
In a thorough FCR, Judge Burch concluded that Arredondo has not established at
least two of the four elements necessary to obtain a TRO. Dkt. No. l0 at 6; see also id. at2
(noting that injunctive relief "is an extraordinary remedy and should not issue except upon a
clear showing of possible irreparable injury" (quoting Lewis v. S.S. Baune, 534 F.2d I I 15,
1121 (5th Cir. 1976)). Specifically, Arredondo's "conclusory allegations" do not establish
an exception to the Younger abstention doctrine, under which federal cours typically refrain
from enjoining ongoing state criminal proceedings. Id. at 5; see Youngo v. Haris, 401 U .S .
-2-
Case 5:25-cv-00222-H-BV Document 24 Filed 03/06/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID <pageID>

37 (1971). Judge Burch then explained that Arredondo has not shown that she will suffer
irreparable harm absent a TRO. Dkt. No. l0 at 5-6. "[A]n injury is irreparable only if it
cannot be undone through monetary remedies." Dennis Melancon, Inc. v. City of New Anean\
703 F.3d 262,279 (5th Cir. 2012) (intemal quotations marls omitted). Arredondo's claims
ofreputational and financial harm associated with the criminal proceedings, Judge Burch
reasoned, "can be remedied with monetary relief. " Dkt. No. 10 at 6.
2. Legal Standard
A party who seek to object to any part of a Magistrate Judge's FCR must file
specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. 28 U.S.C.
$ 636(bXl); Fed. R. Civ. P.72@)(2). As for porrions where no specific objections are filed
within the 14-day period, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations only for plain enor. Serrano v. Customs & Border Patrol, U.S. Customs &
BorderProt.,975 F.3d488, 502 (5th Cn.2020).
When a party files objections, the Court must review those objected-to portions de
novo. 28 U.S.C. $ 636(bXl); Kreimetman v. Cosa Veerkamp, S.A. de C.V., 22 F.3d 634, @6
(5th Cir. 1994). The district court may then accept, reject, or modifu the recommendarions
or findings, in whole or in part. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72OX3). Objections to the FCR must be
"specific"; they must "put the district court on notice of the urged eror." W'illiams v. K&B
Equip. Co.,^724F.2d 508, 5l I (5th Ct. 198a). "[A]n objection must idendry the specific
finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and
speci-fu the place in the magistrate judge's repon and recommendation where the disputed
determination is found. " Thompsonv. Bumpas, No.4:22-CV-640,2022WL 1758527l, at*|
-3
Case 5:25-cv-00222-H-BV Document 24 Filed 03/06/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID <pageID>

Q.{.D. Tex. Dec. 12, 2022) (citng United States v. Mathis, 458 F. Supp. 3d 559, 564 (E.D.
Tex.2020)).
The district court need not consider "[flrivolous, conclusive[,] or general objections."
Baxle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n,834F.2d419,421 (sth Cir. 1987) (quotation omitted).
Moreover, "[i]t is well settled that issues raised for the fust time in objections to a magistrate
judge's report are deemed not properly before the district co:urt." K Iws., Inc. v. B-Gas Ltd.,
No.2l-40642,2022WL 964210, at *5 (5th Cir. Mar. 30,2022) (tust citing Cupit v. Witley,
28 F .3d 532, 535-36 n.5 (5th Cir. 1994); then citing United States v. Armstrong,95l F .2d 626,
630 (5th Ck. 1992); and then cittng Harrison r. Smith,83 F. App'x 630,632 (5th Cir. 2003).
3. Analysis
The Court ovemrles Arredondo's objections and adopts the FCR in full.
In her objection, Arredondo maintains that the FCR "appears to misconstrue [her]
request as seeking to enjoin ongoing state criminal proceedings." Dkt. No. 18 at l. This
allegation is difficult to square with Arredondo's motion, which asls the Court to "restrain
the 106th Judicial District Court of Dawson County, Texas from proceeding in any further
criminal hearings [or] trials," including in three specific cause numbers. Dkt. No. 7 atl. In
any event, Arredondo clarifies that "the underlying charges at issue were dismissed without
prejudice, meaning [she] is currently not facing an active prosecution." Dkt. No. 18 at l.
Thus, there is no state criminal proceeding for the Court to enjoin, mooting Arredondo's
request for a TRO.
To the extent that Aredondo seeks an injunction agailst future criminal proceedings
(see Dkt. No. 18 at 1), that request is misplaced. Arredondo presses "conclusive [and]
general" theories of constitutional harm that the Court need not address in resolving
-4-
Case 5:25-cv-00222-H-BV Document 24 Filed 03/06/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID <pageID>

objections to an FCR. Battle,834F.2d at 421l. sae Dkt. No. 18 at 1. And while Arredondo
continues to assert irreparable harm, the Court agrees with Judge Burch that Arredondo's
alleged injuries-"emotional and psychological trauma" and "being deprived of the normal
rhythms of life"-are compensable via monetary relief. Dkt. No. 18 at 2; see Younger,40l
U.S. at 46 ("Certain types of injury, in particular, the cost, anxiety, and inconvenience of
having to defend against a single criminal prosecution, could not by themselves be
considered 'irreparable' in the special legal sense of that term."). Accordingly, Arredondo
has not shown the irreparable harm required for issuance of a TRO.
4, Conclusion
In sum, the Court ovemrles Arredondo's objections @kt. No. 18) and adopts the
FCR (Dkt. No. 10) as this Court's findings. The Court therefore denies the motion for TRO
(Dkt. No. 7) without prejudice to Arredondo's right to request injunctive relief should
circumstances change.
So ordered on March L,2026
JAMES SLEY HENDRIX
UNITE STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-00222-H-BV Document 24 Filed 03/06/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID <pageID>