Hill v. Stephens County Sheriff

W.D. Oklahoma

Hill v. Stephens County Sheriff

DecidedMay 14, 2025

Docket5:23-cv-00884

StatusUnknown

This text of Hill v. Stephens County Sheriff (Hill v. Stephens County Sheriff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hill v. Stephens County Sheriff, (W.D. Okla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

JUAN DEMETRIUS HILL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. CIV-23-884-SLP STEPHENS COUNTY SHERIFF, et ) al., ) Defendants. ) )

O R D E R

The Court is in receipt of a letter from Plaintiff Juan Demetrius Hill [Doc. No. 12] and a Motion for a Writ of Scire Facias. See [Doc. No. 13]. This is a closed case as the Court dismissed this action on May 15, 2024, after adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin. See [Docs. No. 9, 10]. As to Plaintiff’s letter, the Court notes that he has submitted multiple letters in this matter, and Plaintiff is advised the Court does not rule on correspondence. Any request for action by the Court must be presented in the form of a motion. Plaintiff is cautioned that the Court will address only submissions that conform to its Local Civil Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 81(b), writs of scire facias are abolished in federal court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(b) (“The writs of scire facias and mandamus are abolished. Relief previously available through them may be obtained by appropriate action or motion under these rules.”); Cauthon v. Simmons, 74 F.3d 1248 (10th Cir. 1996) (holding a party “cannot invoke Rule 81(b) as a means of obtaining jurisdiction to seek mandamus relief’ where Rule 81(b) abolished the “writs of scire facias and mandamus”); Hansjurgens v. Bailey, 639 B.R. 262, 271 (S.D. Ga. 2022) (“In federal court, however, the writ of scire facias has been abolished.”). While “[t]he relief formerly obtained through scire facias include[s] the revival of judgment” pursuant to Rules 69(a) and 81(b), see Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp. v. Institutional Sec. of Colorado, Inc., 37 F. App'x 423, 425 (10th Cir. 2002) (unpublished), such relief is not available to Plaintiff as this case was dismissed, so there is no money judgment in his favor to be revived. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a). Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for a Writ of Scire Facias is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 14" day of May, 2025.

DZ kbp SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

JUAN DEMETRIUS HILL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Case No. CIV-23-884-SLP STEPHENS COUNTY SHERIFF, et ) al., ) Defendants. ) )

O R D E R

The Court is in receipt of a letter from Plaintiff Juan Demetrius Hill [Doc. No. 12] and a Motion for a Writ of Scire Facias. See [Doc. No. 13]. This is a closed case as the Court dismissed this action on May 15, 2024, after adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin. See [Docs. No. 9, 10]. As to Plaintiff’s letter, the Court notes that he has submitted multiple letters in this matter, and Plaintiff is advised the Court does not rule on correspondence. Any request for action by the Court must be presented in the form of a motion. Plaintiff is cautioned that the Court will address only submissions that conform to its Local Civil Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 81(b), writs of scire facias are abolished in federal court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(b) (“The writs of scire facias and mandamus are abolished. Relief previously available through them may be obtained by appropriate action or motion under these rules.”); Cauthon v. Simmons, 74 F.3d 1248 (10th Cir. 1996) (holding a party “cannot invoke Rule 81(b) as a means of obtaining jurisdiction to seek mandamus relief’ where Rule 81(b) abolished the “writs of scire facias and mandamus”); Hansjurgens v. Bailey, 639 B.R. 262, 271 (S.D. Ga. 2022) (“In federal court, however, the writ of scire facias has been abolished.”). While “[t]he relief formerly obtained through scire facias include[s] the revival of judgment” pursuant to Rules 69(a) and 81(b), see Sec. Inv. Prot. Corp. v. Institutional Sec. of Colorado, Inc., 37 F. App'x 423, 425 (10th Cir. 2002) (unpublished), such relief is not available to Plaintiff as this case was dismissed, so there is no money judgment in his favor to be revived. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 69(a). Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for a Writ of Scire Facias is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 14" day of May, 2025.

DZ kbp SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hill v. Stephens County Sheriff, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-stephens-county-sheriff-okwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack