Williams v. Becerra et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
DENETTA R. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTIAN BECERRA, et al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-25-2243
ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
This court has reviewed the Memorandum and Recommendation of Judge Richard W.
Bennett signed on January 15, 2026, (Docket Entry No. 51), and made a de novo determination,
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219 (5th
Cir. 1989). Based on the pleadings, the parties’ briefs, and the applicable law, the court adopts
Judge Bennett’s Memorandum and Recommendation as this court’s Memorandum and Order. The
court finds and concludes that: (1) Whitbeck’s motion to dismiss, (Docket Entry No. 36), is
granted; (2) the Fort Bend County defendants’ motion to dismiss, (Docket Entry No. 39), is
granted; (3) the Fort Bend County defendants’ motion to recognize dismissal, (Docket Entry No.
40), is granted; (4) the RMG defendants’ motion to dismiss, (Docket Entry No. 41), is granted;
and (5) the FBISD defendants’ motion to dismiss, (Docket Entry No. 42), is granted.
The court has carefully considered the plaintiff’s objections to the Memorandum and
Recommendation, (Docket Entry No. 52), and has determined that they should be overruled. First,
Williams argues that Judge Brame and Judge Becerra cannot claim judicial immunity because they
acted in complete absence of jurisdiction. (See id. at 10). This argument is incorrect because the
statute on which Williams bases her argument, Tex. Elec. Code § 231.004, is not jurisdictional. 	It
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 05, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-02243 Document 57 Filed 03/04/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
is a waivable statutory disqualification. See Horn v. Gibson, 352 S.W.3d 511, 514 (Tex. App.—
Fort Worth 2011, pet. denied). The judges are entitled to judicial immunity. Second, Williams
argues that she did not receive service of the remaining motions to dismiss and filed an amended
complaint under duress. (Docket Entry No. 52 at 11–13). But Williams received these motions at
her email address, (Docket Entry Nos. 53-1, 55-1, 56-1), which she agreed was appropriate service,
(Docket Entry No. 32 at 7 (“Plaintiff . . . agrees to receive service of all filings and correspondence
in this matter via email.”)). In addition, Judge Bennett reviewed the amended complaint on the
merits without imposing a penalty on Williams for failing to respond. (See Docket Entry No. 51
at 8–9, 17 n.6). 	Williams does not contest the merits of Judge Bennett’s rulings on the claims
against the remaining defendants.
Judge Bennett thoroughly examined the law and applied the correct legal standards and
rulings to the alleged facts in granting the motions to dismiss. Final judgment dismissing this case
with prejudice is entered by separate order.
SIGNED on March 4, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
________________________________
Lee H. Rosenthal
Senior United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-02243 Document 57 Filed 03/04/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2