Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Douglas v. O'Neal

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division

December 11, 2017

LONNIE DOUGLAS, ET AL., Plaintiffs
v.
PETER O'NEAL, ET AL., Defendant

          DRELL JUDGE.

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes, United States Magistrate Judge.

         Before 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.

         I. Background

         On July 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).

         Plaintiffs 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.[1]

         II. Law and Analysis

         A. Standards governing Seizing a Person or Property.

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

(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 action:
* arrest;
* attachment;
* ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.