Marks v. City of Manvel et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
JOHN MARKS,
Plaintiff.
V.
CITY OF MANVEL, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-cv-00243
ORDER
In 	this 	case, 	Freddie 	Douglas 	alleges 	that 	he 	was 	falsely 	accused 	of
aggravated sexual assault. He insists that if law enforcement officers had properly
investigated, they would have discovered that such allegations were objectively and
demonstrably false.
Douglas served a subpoena on the Texas Department of Public Safety
(“TDPS”), seeking to depose Texas Ranger Aaron Arizmendi. TDPS timely filed a
motion to quash, which I granted on December 1, 2025. See Dkt. 77. Douglas
objected to my December 1, 2025 order. See Dkt. 78. On December 17, 2025, Judge
Jeffrey V. Brown overruled Douglas’s objections to my December 1, 2025 order.
See Dkt. 84. Douglas wants to appeal that decision. Unfortunately for Douglas, he
originally served Arizmendi without tendering fees. 1 Douglas believes that he must
“re-serve Arizmendi with another Subpoena for his deposition with the proper
amount of fees” “so that this issue goes to the 5 th Circuit cleanly.” Dkt. 79 at 1.
Accordingly, Douglas has again served TDPS with a subpoena, seeking to depose
Arizmendi. TDPS has again filed a motion to quash. See Dkt. 88. Douglas has filed
a substantially similar response to TDPS’s first motion to quash. See Dkt. 90. I now
rule the same as I did before and grant TDPS’s motion to quash.
1 “Serving a subpoena requires delivering a copy to the named person and, if the subpoena
requires that person’s attendance, tendering the fees for 1 day’s attendance and the
mileage allowed by law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 08, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:24-cv-00243 Document 91 Filed 01/08/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
In his role as a Texas Ranger,2 	Arizmendi reportedly participated in
Douglas’s arrest and witnessed two relevant conversations on the same day as the
arrest. One conversation was between the investigating officers from the Manvel
Police 	Department 	and 	the 	Brazoria 	County 	District 	Attorney. 	The 	other
conversation included the Chief of the El Campo Police Department and the
arresting officers from the Manvel Police Department. TDPS objects “to providing
the requested information based on state sovereign immunity, which” it insists,
“bars compliance with third-party subpoenas.” Dkt. 69 at 14 (citing Russell v.
Jones, 49 F.4th 507, 514–15, 518–19 (5th Cir. 2022)).
In Russell, the Fifth Circuit held that state sovereign immunity applied to
bar third-party subpoenas served on 17 Texas felony judges in their official
capacities in federal court litigation. See 49 F.4th at 514–15. Douglas argues that
Russell does not prohibit Arizmendi, as a state employee, from being compelled to
answer a third-party subpoena and appear for a deposition. In an opinion issued
earlier this year, however, the Fifth Circuit squarely rejected Douglas’s position:
As an agency of Texas, TDPS receives immunity from suit. We
have recognized that “compelled compliance with a subpoena duces
tecum violates” sovereign immunity. Russell, 49 F.4th at 515 (quoting
Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 715 (1999)). And even though TDPS is
a third party to this litigation, it still receives protection against
compelled 	compliance; 	“[w]here 	sovereign 	immunity 	applies, 	it
applies totally.” Id. at 514. Furthermore, “sovereign immunity is an
immunity from suit (including discovery), not just liability.” Id.
(emphasis in original) (citing Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526
(1985)). A state and its agencies cannot be compelled to participate in
discovery, even as third parties. Otherwise, the sovereign’s “interests”
in its “dignity and authority over its prerogatives” would be treated as
“less interesting” when it “is served with a subpoena duces tecum
instead of a complaint”—that cannot be the case. Russell, 49 F.4th at
515.
2 The Texas Rangers are one of the most famous law enforcement agencies in North
America. Organized in 1835, they have been “eulogized as the white knights of the
American Southwest.” Steadman v. Tex. Rangers, 179 F.3d 360, 363 (5th Cir. 1999). The
Texas Rangers became part of the TDPS in 1935. See id.
Case 3:24-cv-00243 Document 91 Filed 01/08/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
Thompson v. Richter, No. 24-10837, 2025 WL 1233519, at *2 (5th Cir. Apr. 29,
2025) (cleaned up). 3
I understand Douglas’s frustration. Douglas believes it is important for him
to depose Arizmendi as part of the underlying civil case. But regardless of the
importance of Arizmendi’s testimony, my hands are tied. Fifth Circuit precedent is
clear.4 At oral argument on the first motion to quash, Douglas’s counsel conceded
that the sole reason Arizmendi observed the two conversations at issue is because
he had been asked as a Texas Ranger to participate in Douglas’s arrest. Because
Arizmendi was acting in his official capacity as a Texas Ranger when he witnessed
the two conversations at issue, sovereign immunity prevents me from forcing a
state official like Arizmendi to appear for a deposition. Accordingly, I grant the
motion to quash.
SIGNED this 	day of January 2026.
______________________________
ANDREW M. EDISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
3 In seeking to minimize Russell’s importance, Douglas relies on a recent opinion from
the Western District of Texas. See Drs. Hosp. of Laredo v. Cigarroa, No. SA-21-CV-
01068, 	2023 	WL 	11987993 	(W.D. 	Tex. 	May 	19, 	2023). 	Cigarroa 	is 	inapposite.
In Cigarroa, Judge Xavier Rodriguez held that sovereign immunity did not prevent the
depositions of two non-party doctors who worked for the University of Texas because the
doctors were not “acting as state officials.” Id. at *1 (cleaned up). By contrast, Arizmendi
was unquestionably acting as a state official in his capacity as a Texas Ranger.
4 In a response brief, Douglas cites more than 15 district court and circuit court opinions
from across the country disagreeing with Russell’s holding that a state and its agencies
cannot be compelled to participate in discovery as third parties. See Dkt. 90 at 5–11. Those
cases are interesting to read, but I am required to follow binding Fifth Circuit precedent
until the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court overturns it. Russell is directly on point.
Case 3:24-cv-00243 Document 91 Filed 01/08/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3