Duve v. Forrest et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
SUSAN ELIZABETH DUVE,
Plaintiff.
V.
WILLIAM CHARLES FORREST, et
al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-cv-00158
MEMORANDUM OPINION, ORDER, AND RECOMMENDATION
On April 28, 2026, Plaintiff Susan Elizabeth Duve instituted this civil rights
action in the Victoria Division against 108 defendants (one of whom is deceased). 1
See Dkt. 12. On May 19, 2026, Judge David S. Morales transferred this case to the
Galveston Division because a substantial number of the events forming the basis
of this lawsuit occurred in Matagorda County, which is in the Galveston Division.
On May 21, 2026, this case was referred to me for all pretrial purposes. See Dkt.
16.
Plaintiff, representing herself, seeks ex parte relief from the court through
her application for a temporary restraining order. See Dkt. 4. Plaintiff has also filed
a motion to seal sensitive information regarding Plaintiff’s adult daughter (Dkt. 3),
a motion to appear remotely for all proceedings (Dkt. 5), and a motion for a
protective order regarding Plaintiff’s adult daughter (Dkt. 6). I will address each
of these requests in turn.
1 Plaintiff’s list of defendants spans 13 pages. See Dkt. 1 at 12–24. Plaintiff has grouped
these defendants into eight categories: (1) Private Actor Defendants – The Forrest
Enterprise, including Plaintiff’s estranged husband, his paramours, child, and alleged co-
conspirators; (2) State Actor Defendants, including two judges, a court reporter, and
seven police departments across two states; (3) Attorney Defendants; (4) Las Brisas
Condo Defendants – Tenants and Property Managers; (5) ESOP and Financial Services
Defendants; (6) Financial Advisor Defendants; (7) Commercial Defendants; and (8) Doe
Defendants.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 26, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:26-cv-00158 Document 19 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

2
APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Plaintiff seeks a temporary restraining order. Specifically, Plaintiff requests
an 	immediate 	Temporary 	Restraining 	Order, 	without 	notice 	to
Defendants if necessary under Rule 65(b), enjoining Defendants
Judge John C. Maher, Jr., Lauralee Collins Zalman, and all persons
acting in concert with them from proceeding with the June 29, 2026
trial in Cause Nos. 22-H-0469 and 23-H-0160 [in Matagorda County],
pending further order of this Court.
Dkt. 4 at 3.
I need not reach the merits of Plaintiff’s motion because “[t]he Anti–
Injunction Act prohibits federal courts from enjoining state court proceedings.”
United States v. Sid-Mars Rest. & Lounge, Inc., 644 F.3d 270, 272 (5th Cir. 2011)
(citing 28 U.S.C. § 2283), opinion supplemented on denial of reh’g, 654 F.3d 521
(5th Cir. 2011). Under the Anti–Injunction Act, “the presumption is that state
courts are the best arbiters of state court jurisdiction; thus, state proceedings
should normally be allowed to continue unimpaired by intervention of the lower
federal courts, with relief from error, if any, through the state appellate courts and
ultimately the [United States] Supreme Court.” Total Plan Servs., Inc. v. Tex.
Retailers Ass’n, Inc., 925 F.2d 142, 144 (5th Cir. 1991) (cleaned up). There are three
“narrow” statutory exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act, none of which apply
here.2 Id. Accordingly, I recommend that Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary
restraining order against state court proceedings be denied.
MOTION TO APPEAR REMOTELY FOR ALL PROCEEDINGS
Plaintiff 	asks 	that 	she 	be 	allowed 	to 	“appear 	by 	telephone 	or 	video
conference for all hearings, conferences and proceedings in this action,” and that
her “address and location remain confidential and not be disclosed to Defendants.”
Dkt. 5 at 2. The first of these requests is easily granted, at least as to pretrial
2 “A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State
court except [1] as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or [2] where necessary in aid
of its jurisdiction, or [3] to protect or effectuate its judgments.” 28 U.S.C.A. § 2283.
Case 3:26-cv-00158 Document 19 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

3
proceedings. I handle nearly all court business by Zoom, unless the parties request
to appear in person. Even when one party asks for an in-person hearing, I never
make the other parties appear in person if they prefer to appear remotely.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is free to appear by Zoom in all matters before me.
Trial, however, is a different story. Trial in this case will be before Judge
Jeffrey V. Brown, not me. Judge Brown generally requires in-person appearances
at all trials. Should this case proceed to trial, Plaintiff will need to renew her request
for remote appearance to Judge Brown. But there is no need to cross that bridge
now. There are 108 defendants in this case, none of whom have been served.
Accordingly, trial is in the distant future.
As for Plaintiff’s request that her address remain confidential, that is an
unworkable ask. Plaintiff is appearing pro se. Defendants must have a good
address for Plaintiff to serve their filings upon her. Moreover, Plaintiff, as a pro se
litigant, is required to include her “address, e-mail address, and telephone
number” on every filing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a). Addresses are not typically
information that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit to be redacted from
filings. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request keep her address
confidential is denied without prejudice to refiling. If Plaintiff can substantiate the
need to keep her address confidential and provide a workable solution for receiving
service of documents from Defendants, then I will reconsider the issue.
SERVING DEFENDANTS
Because Plaintiff “has prepaid the filing fee in this case in full,” she “is
responsible for service of process.” Judd v. F.C.C., 276 F.R.D. 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2011)
(citation modified). “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint
is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must
dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service
be made within a specified time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). In this case, Plaintiff could
not have known that she would be responsible for serving Defendants until the
court ruled upon her in forma pauperis application.
Case 3:26-cv-00158 Document 19 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

4
So, I will give Plaintiff until Wednesday, August 19, 2026, to serve
Defendants. But Plaintiff is warned: failure to serve a defendant by
August 19, 2026, will result in the dismissal of Plaintiff’s case against
that defendant.
Plaintiff is also reminded that only a “person who is at least 18 years old and
not a party may serve a summons and complaint.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2)
(emphasis added). In other words, Plaintiff may not serve any Defendant
herself. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2) (“Any person who is at least 18 years old and
not a party may serve a summons and complaint.” (emphasis added)).
Plaintiff should refer to the Guidelines for Litigants Without Lawyers, for
further guidance on serving Defendants. To access this document, visit the
Southern District of Texas homepage at https://www.txs.uscourts.gov. Select the
“District Court” dropdown menu, then select “Local & Federal Rules.” Access the
Guidelines 	for 	Litigants 	Without 	Lawyers 	by 	clicking 	the 	text 	that 	reads:
“Litigants Without Lawyers / Pro Se Parties.” Plaintiff should pay special attention
to paragraph 8, which covers the procedures Plaintiff must follow to request
summons from the Clerk. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(b) (“On or after filing the
complaint, the plaintiff may present a summons to the clerk for signature and seal.
. . . A 	summons—or 	a 	copy 	of 	a 	summons 	that 	is 	addressed 	to 	multiple
defendants—must be issued for each defendant to be served.”); Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(c)(1) (“A summons must be served with a copy of the complaint. The plaintiff is
responsible for having the summons and complaint served within the time allowed
by Rule 4(m) and must furnish the necessary copies to the person who makes
service.”).
MOTION TO SEAL
Plaintiff requests “an order permitting her to file under seal certain sensitive
information regarding a third party, Jordyn Nicole Morales, her adult daughter.”
Dkt. 3 at 1. This request is denied without prejudice. The Fifth Circuit has
instructed district courts to “undertake a case-by-case, document-by-document,
Case 3:26-cv-00158 Document 19 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

5
line-by-line balancing of the public’s common law right of access against the
interests favoring nondisclosure.” Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410,
419 (5th Cir. 2021) (cleaned up). Accordingly, I cannot properly evaluate a motion
to seal without seeing the information that Plaintiff seeks to redact from the public
record.3 Additionally, the Galveston Division Rules of Practice—available on Judge
Brown’s and my webpages—set forth the procedure for filing a motion to seal:
Per the court’s Standing Protective Order, which can be found
on Judge Brown and Judge Edison’s webpages, if a party wishes to file
a pleading, motion, or exhibit under seal, it must be accompanied by
a motion to seal that undertakes the analysis required in Binh Hoa Le
v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 417–21 (5th Cir. 2021). Such
motion must also be accompanied by a version of the document(s) to
be sealed/redacted in which proposed redactions are highlighted. The
court will not seal documents wholesale absent an extraordinary
showing. Motions to seal and all exhibits to motions to seal should be
filed as a single, combined document.
Gal. Div. R. Prac. 6(e). If Plaintiff wishes to file an amended motion to seal, she
must follow this procedure.
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
Finally, Plaintiff seeks a protective order that would require any party to this
litigation to seek an order from this court before serving any third-party discovery
requests upon Plaintiff’s adult daughter. See Dkt. 6-1. Plaintiff also wishes to
prohibit parties and their counsel “from disclosing any information about [her
adult daughter’s] personal history, including any alleged trauma, to any third
party.” Id. at 1. This request is denied.
Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge hypothetical subpoenas issued to her
daughter—an adult who is not party to this litigation. 4 To start, this court does not
issue advisory opinions or rule on hypothetical disputes. No defendant has even
3 Even if I could evaluate such a motion without seeing the information to be redacted,
Plaintiff has not offered enough substance to know why I should permit the sealing of
information concerning an adult who is not a party to this litigation.
4 Plaintiff has not alleged that her adult daughter lacks capacity or that Plaintiff is her
adult daughter’s legal guardian, which might alter the analysis.
Case 3:26-cv-00158 Document 19 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

6
been served with notice of this case, so there are no subpoenas to which this court
could direct its attention. More importantly, Plaintiff “do[es] not have standing to
raise the issue of [her daughter]’s amenability to the compulsory process of the
district court since [she has] . . . not alleged any personal right or privilege with
respect to the materials [that might be] subpoenaed.” Brown v. Braddick, 595 F.2d
961, 967 (5th Cir. 1979). Only Plaintiff’s adult daughter has standing to challenge
a subpoena issued to her, and only once such a subpoena has issued.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, I recommend that Plaintiff’s application
for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. 4) be DENIED. Additionally, I GRANT
Plaintiff’s request to appear remotely at all pretrial proceedings (Dkt. 5), but I
DENY Plaintiff’s request to keep her address confidential. I also DENY Plaintiff’s
motion to seal without prejudice to refiling (Dkt. 3). Finally, I DENY Plaintiff’s
motion for a protective order (Dkt. 6).
Plaintiff must ensure that each defendant is properly served by
August 19, 2026. Failure to serve a defendant by August 19, 2026, will
result in the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims against that defendant.
Plaintiff has 14 days from service of this Memorandum Opinion, Order, and
Recommendation to file written objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file timely objections will preclude appellate review of
factual findings and legal conclusions, except for plain error.
SIGNED this ___ day of May 2026.
______________________________
ANDREW M. EDISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00158 Document 19 Filed 05/26/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 6