United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
H.L. Perez-Montes, United States Magistrate Judge.
the Court is a “Motion for Judicial Sequestration of
Real Property Subject of this Suit or Louisiana Writ of
Attachment to Crops of Farmland Belonging to Henry Douglas
Subject to Suit and Real Property Belonging to Lonnie
Douglas” (“Motion for Judicial
Sequestration”) (Doc. 5). Pro se Plaintiffs Lonnie
Douglas, Henry Douglas, MacArthur Douglas, Viola Douglas,
Antionette Douglas, and Lawrence Mathis
(“Plaintiffs”) filed this Motion for Judicial
Sequestration seeking judicial sequestration or judicial
attachment to the real property that is the subject of their
Complaint. (Doc. 5). Because Plaintiffs fail to satisfy the
requirements of La. Code Civ. P. Art. 3501, Plaintiffs'
Motion for Judicial Sequestration (Doc. 5) is DENIED.
31, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an “Original Complaint Writ
of Possession and Contemporaneous Summary Judgment Pursuant
to FRCP 56” (“Complaint”). (Doc. 1).
Plaintiffs named as Defendants Peter O'Neal
(“O'Neal”), George (“Guy”)
Carroll (“Carroll”), Kramer, CPSD, Catahoula
Parish, Louisiana, Edwards, and the United States Department
of Agriculture - Sonny Perdue, Secretary of Agriculture
(“Defendants”). (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs made a
number of claims against Defendants which are premised on the
rightful ownership of farmland. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs appear
to claim the property that is the subject of this litigation
was illegally sold/foreclosed through the acts or omissions
of Defendants. (Doc. 1).
subsequently filed a Motion for Judicial Sequestration (Doc.
5) wherein they request the court “move” for
judicial sequestration or judicial attachment to the real
property that is the subject of this suit. Plaintiffs claim
Carroll will “try to sell or transfer the
property” or “will profit from the fruits of the
real property, attempt to sell the fruit or willfully spoil
the fruit of the real estate that ‘the defendants'
did not own.” (Doc. 5). While Plaintiffs refer to
“defendants, ” it appears they are alleging
Carroll may try to sell the property that is the subject of
this suit, or spoil the fruit of the property.
Law and Analysis
Standards governing Seizing a Person or
Rule of Civil Procedure 64 provides, in pertinent part, as
(a) Remedies Under State Law-In General. At the commencement
of and throughout an action, every remedy is available that,
under the law of the state where the court is located,
provides for seizing a person or property to secure
satisfaction of the potential judgment. But a federal statute
governs to the extent it applies.
(b) Specific Kinds of Remedies. The remedies available under
this rule include the following-however designated and
regardless of whether state procedure requires an independent