Benefield v. Tyler Police Department

E.D. Texas

Benefield v. Tyler Police Department

DecidedMay 1, 2025

Docket6:25-cv-00014

StatusUnknown

This text of Benefield v. Tyler Police Department (Benefield v. Tyler Police Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benefield v. Tyler Police Department, (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:25-cv-00014 Tristan Noah Benefield, Plaintiff, V. Tyler Police Department, Defendant.

ORDER Plaintiff Tristan Noah Benefield filed this action on January 14, 2025. Doc. 1. The case was referred to a magistrate judge pur- suant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). On January 16, 2025, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the complaint be dis- missed with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Doc. 4. No objections have been filed. Importantly, this lawsuit appears to have actually been filed by Kevin James Kohute. Benefield’s filings bear the same handwriting and address as those by Kohute, and Kohute is a “well-known, vexatious litigant” who is currently subject to sanctions. Doc. 4 at 2. When a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s report, the court reviews the record only for clear error. See Douglass ». United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Hav- ing reviewed the magistrate judge’s report, and being satisfied that it contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommendation. Plaintiffs action is dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Any pending motions are denied as moot. To the extent that the action was filed by Kevin Kohute on be- half of Benefield, Kohute has been barred from filing any new law- suits unless such lawsuit is filed by an attorney licensed to practice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the full filing fee is paid at the outset of the case. See Kohute v.

-l-

Nat’! Rifle Ass’n, No. 6:24-cv-00475, Doc. 6 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2025). Kohute is further warned that, should he continue to file friv- olous documents in violation of his sanctions, the court will im- pose additional sanctions against him, including potential mone- tary sanctions. See Jackson v. Carpenter, 921 F.2d 68, 69 (5th Cir. 1991) (cautioning a pro se litigant that the continued abuse of the legal system “will trigger increasingly severe sanctions, including the ultimate denial of access to the judicial system absent specific prior court approval”). So ordered by the court on May 1, 2025. —felacboke BARKER United States District Judge

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:25-cv-00014 Tristan Noah Benefield, Plaintiff, V. Tyler Police Department, Defendant.

ORDER Plaintiff Tristan Noah Benefield filed this action on January 14, 2025. Doc. 1. The case was referred to a magistrate judge pur- suant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). On January 16, 2025, the magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the complaint be dis- missed with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Doc. 4. No objections have been filed. Importantly, this lawsuit appears to have actually been filed by Kevin James Kohute. Benefield’s filings bear the same handwriting and address as those by Kohute, and Kohute is a “well-known, vexatious litigant” who is currently subject to sanctions. Doc. 4 at 2. When a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s report, the court reviews the record only for clear error. See Douglass ». United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1420 (5th Cir. 1996). Hav- ing reviewed the magistrate judge’s report, and being satisfied that it contains no clear error, the court accepts its findings and recommendation. Plaintiffs action is dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Any pending motions are denied as moot. To the extent that the action was filed by Kevin Kohute on be- half of Benefield, Kohute has been barred from filing any new law- suits unless such lawsuit is filed by an attorney licensed to practice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the full filing fee is paid at the outset of the case. See Kohute v.

-l-

Nat’! Rifle Ass’n, No. 6:24-cv-00475, Doc. 6 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2025). Kohute is further warned that, should he continue to file friv- olous documents in violation of his sanctions, the court will im- pose additional sanctions against him, including potential mone- tary sanctions. See Jackson v. Carpenter, 921 F.2d 68, 69 (5th Cir. 1991) (cautioning a pro se litigant that the continued abuse of the legal system “will trigger increasingly severe sanctions, including the ultimate denial of access to the judicial system absent specific prior court approval”). So ordered by the court on May 1, 2025. —felacboke BARKER United States District Judge

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Benefield v. Tyler Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benefield-v-tyler-police-department-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack