Boggess v. Chamness, No. 6:25-cv-64-JDK-JDL (2025)

Case details
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
2025
Majority
Recommendation Of The (J.) (unanimous Court)
Boggess v. Chamness, Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 978992Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division.Larysa BOGGESS, Plaintiff,v.T. Heath CHAMNESS, District Attorney,Smith County, et al., Defendants.Case No. 6:25-cv-64-JDK-JDL|Signed April 1, 2025Attorneys and Law FirmsLarysa Boggess, Tyler, TX, Pro Se.ORDER ADOPTING REPORT ANDRECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITEDSTATES MAGISTRATE JUDGEJEREMY D. KERNODLE, UNITED STATES DISTRICTJUDGE*1 Plaintiff Larysa Boggess, proceeding pro se, filed thisaction on February 28, 2025. Docket No. 1. The case wasreferred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love forfindings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendationsfor the disposition of the action. Docket No. 3. On March3, 2025, Judge Love issued a Report and Recommendation,(Docket No. 4), recommending that the case be dismissedwith prejudice. Plaintiff filed objections to the Report andRecommendation. Docket No. 6.Where a party timely objects to the Report andRecommendation, the Court reviews the objected-to findingsand conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo. 28U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, theCourt examines the entire record and makes an independentassessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto.Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc),superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteendays).Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding that theDefendant prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity onthe grounds that the they brought false charges against her,and Defendant Chamness allegedly had one of her witnessesarrested during trial. Docket No. 6.As to the first objection, Plaintiff cites the case of Brownv. McCormick to support her contention that prosecutorialimmunity should be overcome. Plaintiff provides thefollowing citation: Brown v. McCormick, 201 F.3d 159 (2dCir. 2000). Docket No. 6 at 1. However, such a case doesnot exist. The citation to the reporter is for the case RetrofitPartners I, L.P. v. Lucas Indus., Inc., 201 F.3d 155 (2dCir. 2000), which did not involve the issue of prosecutorialimmunity and deals instead with contract claims and violationof the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act for retrofittingaircraft engines. Plaintiff's citation to a hallucinatory casewas likely generated via artificial intelligence and violatesthis Court's Local Rule CV-11(g), which makes clear that“generative artificial intelligence tools may produce factualand legal inaccuracies and reminds attorneys that they mustverify the information that they submit to the court.” Gauthierv. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 2024 WL 4882651, at *2(E.D. Tex. Nov. 25, 2024). Just like an attorney, a pro selitigant remains bound by the Court's rules and the standardsarticulated under Rule 11. See L.R. CV-11(g). Plaintiff'sfalse statement of law in her objections is sanctionable andprovides no basis to overcome prosecutorial immunity. Thisobjection is overruled.As best as can be interpreted, Plaintiff's second objectionrelates to the fact that Defendant Chamness allegedly toldthe state judge that Plaintiff's witness, Mr. Brannon, calledDefendant Chamness a “white devil.” And this allegedlypersuaded Plaintiff's lawyers not to call this witness. Plaintifffurther asserts that Defendant Chamness had the witnessarrested for “allegedly having privileged attorney clientknowledge outside the courtroom.” Docket No. 6 at 2. Theseassertions do not create a basis to overcome prosecutorialimmunity in this case as they relate directly to DefendantChamness's prosecution of the case and his advocatory role inallegedly handling an adverse witness. See Cousin v. Small,325 F.3d 627, 637 (5th Cir. 2003) (finding that “detentionof witnesses to prevent them from testifying in criminalproceedings, while unlawful and improper, is nonethelessshielded by absolute immunity”). Accordingly, this objectionis overruled.*2 Having conducted a de novo review of the record inthis case and the Magistrate Judge's Report, the Court hasdetermined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct,and Plaintiff's objections are without merit. Accordingly, the
Boggess v. Chamness, Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections (Docket No. 6)and ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge (DocketNo. 4) as the opinion of the District Court. This case isDISMISSED with prejudice.So ORDERED and SIGNED this 1st day of April, 2025.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2025 WL 978992End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access