United States of America v. Morris Russell Coe, Jr., et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
• Decided: December 16, 2025
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00566
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-0566-K § MORRIS RUSSELL COE, JR., et al., § § Defendants. § § § ORDER OF CIVIL CONTEMPT In a proceeding before the undersigned on this same day, December 16, 2025, the Court OVERRULED and DENIED the following documents filed by Defendant Morris Russell Coe, Jr. (“Defendant”): (1) Objections to Plaintiff’s Exhibit “A” Requests (Doc. No. 105); (2) Objection to Post-Judgment Deposition and Reservation of Rights (Doc. No. 106); (3) Motion for Protective Order Limiting Discovery and Deposition Scope (Doc. No. 107); (4) Emergency Motion to Stay Post-Judgment Discovery and Subpoena Pending Motion to Vacate and RFRA Determination (Doc. No. 108); (5) Motion to Vacate Void Judgment Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) (Doc. No. 109); and (6) Motion for Protective Order and to Quash Subpoena and Post-Judgment Discovery Under RFRA (Doc. No. 110). For the following reasons, the Court finds Defendant Morris Russell Coe, Jr. is in CIVIL CONTEMPT of the Court. As stated on the record, the Court has before it the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, dated October 31, 2025 (Doc. No. 99), on Plaintiff the United States of

America’s (the “Government”) Motion for Show Cause Order (Doc. No. 80). The Court has made a de novo review of those portions of the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation to which objections were made. See Doc. No. 100 (Defendant’s Objections). The objections are overruled. The Court reviewed the remaining

Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for plain error. Finding no error, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Certified Facts as the findings of this Court. See also Denton v. Suter, Civ. Action No. 3:11-CV-2559-N, 2016 WL 6581288, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2016)(Godbey, J.) (“the magistrate judge’s certified facts can be considered the statement of the prima facie case” of civil contempt.). The Court

ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. See generally Doc. No. 99 (concluding that the certified facts establish a prima facie case of civil contempt for Defendant’s failure to comply with the Magistrate Judge’s Discovery Order entered March 5, 2025.). The Government’s

Motion for Show Cause Order (Doc. No. 80) is granted. On the facts established at today’s proceeding and for the reasons stated on the record, the Court finds by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the Order entered by the undersigned on November 19, 2025 (the “Deposition Order”) is in effect, (2) the Deposition Order requires certain conduct by Defendant, and (3) Defendant failed to

comply with the Deposition Order. See Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Allied Pilots Ass’n, 228 F.3d 574, 581 (Sth Cir. 2000). The Court also finds that Defendant failed to prove a present inability to comply with the Deposition Order. See United States v. Rylander, 460 U.S. 752,757 (1983). For the foregoing reasons and those stated on the record at today’s proceeding, the Court finds Defendant Morris Russell Coe, Jr. in CIVIL CONTEMPT for failing to comply with the Court’s Discovery Order and Deposition Order. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that a Warrant issue as to Defendant Morris Russell Coe, Jr. The United States Marshals Service is ORDERED to keep Defendant Morris Russell Coe, Jr. in custody until he purges himself of contempt by (1) complying with the Discovery Order, specifically responding to the Government’s Post-Judgment Interrogatories (including amended responses) and Requests for Production of Documents, and (2) complying with the Deposition Order, specifically fully participating in and cooperating with his deposition. SO ORDERED. Signed December 16", 2025. AXiuheade ED KINKEADE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE