Kohute v. City of Tyler Police Department

E.D. Texas

Kohute v. City of Tyler Police Department

DecidedApril 25, 2025

Docket6:25-cv-00005

StatusUnknown

This text of Kohute v. City of Tyler Police Department (Kohute v. City of 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

Kohute v. City of Tyler Police Department, (E.D. Tex. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:25-cv-00005 Kevin James Kohute, Plaintiff, V. City of Tyler Police Department et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff Kevin Kohute, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit against defendants on December 26, 2024, in the Western District of Texas. Doc. 1. The case was transferred to this district, Doc. 4, and referred to a magistrate judge. On January 8, 2025, the mag- istrate judge issued a report recommending that plaintiff’s claims be dismissed without prejudice. Doc. 6. Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the report on January 13, 2025. Doc. 7. Plaintiff has not filed objections, and the time for doing so has passed. 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. Plaintiff’s action is dismissed without preju- dice for lack of standing, lack of capacity to be sued, and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Any pending motions are denied as moot. Consistent with the court’s sanction previously imposed, see Kohute v. Nat’! Rifle Ass’n, No. 6:24-cv-00475, Doc. 6 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2025), the clerk shall not accept any new lawsuits from Kevin Kohute 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.

-l-

Kohute is further cautioned that, should he continue to file frivolous documents in violation of his sanctions, the court will impose additional sanctions against him, including potential mon- etary 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 April 25, 2025.

yj! ‘CAMPBELL 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-00005 Kevin James Kohute, Plaintiff, V. City of Tyler Police Department et al., Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff Kevin Kohute, proceeding pro se, filed this lawsuit against defendants on December 26, 2024, in the Western District of Texas. Doc. 1. The case was transferred to this district, Doc. 4, and referred to a magistrate judge. On January 8, 2025, the mag- istrate judge issued a report recommending that plaintiff’s claims be dismissed without prejudice. Doc. 6. Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the report on January 13, 2025. Doc. 7. Plaintiff has not filed objections, and the time for doing so has passed. 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. Plaintiff’s action is dismissed without preju- dice for lack of standing, lack of capacity to be sued, and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Any pending motions are denied as moot. Consistent with the court’s sanction previously imposed, see Kohute v. Nat’! Rifle Ass’n, No. 6:24-cv-00475, Doc. 6 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2025), the clerk shall not accept any new lawsuits from Kevin Kohute 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.

-l-

Kohute is further cautioned that, should he continue to file frivolous documents in violation of his sanctions, the court will impose additional sanctions against him, including potential mon- etary 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 April 25, 2025.

yj! ‘CAMPBELL BARKER United States District Judge

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kohute v. City of Tyler Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kohute-v-city-of-tyler-police-department-txed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack