# Opposition Brief — Reed v. Terrell > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385018_0683%3A5 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1985 - **Citation:** 474 U.S. 946 ## Text .——____*» —— Supreme Court, U.S. FILED oN OCT 21 196 ~ JOSEPH F. SPANIOL, JR. RK NO. 85-373 | EEE. 20 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, 1985 CHARLES REED AND ROLAND DUTY, PETITIONERS V. JAMES TERRELL, SUE RAYBOLD, BILL LOGUE, JOE JOHNSON AND THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS, RESPONDENTS ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT JOE JOHNSON IN OPPOSITION TO CERTIORARI COUNSEL OF RECORD: DONALD 0. HALL HALL & KETTLER, P.C. 504 AUSTIN AVENUE WACO, TEXAS ~ 76701-2195 (817) 756-4471 4% TABLE OF CONTENTS Page a ge. Ee eo ii REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT... .... l NO CAUSE OF ACTION ON WHICH FEDERAL COURT MAY GRANT RELIEF AGAINST THIS IS By, ae es re 2 re Cree ee eG ee a be She eke 3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES — Page Binge v. Foster, 47 S.W.2d 862. ...... 3 De Los Fuentes v. MacDonald, oe Cs Ree ee ee a ke ee es 3 District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 206 . [cue ss. koe ee eae es a ee 2 Hagerty v. Succession of Clements, 749 Fed.2d 217 (Fifti. Circuit, 1984) . . 1,4 STATUTES Sinies. Se it EOS Se ae eee 1 SE Gideon. Se Soe ee Ss eee ee 4 G.5. Db. Ge. We See ssa ek ee 4 Ten. Fee. Come A. SUE. TOO). kc ak es ded hts. REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT The rationale of the Petitioners' position to justify this Court to grant a Writ of Certiorari to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is that the Respondents acted in conjunction with each other to cause Texas Family Code §11.18(a) to be enforced against them as a class, consisting of husbands and ex-husbands, in deprivation of their "civil rights" under 42 U.S.C. §1983. It is fundamentally clear that “a plaintiff may not seek a reversal of a state court judgment simply by casting his complaint in the form of a civil rights action." Hagerty v. Succession of Clements, 749 Fed.2d 217, 220 (Fifth Circuit, 1984). Petitioners further attempt to seek justifica- tion for the granting of the Writ by alleging that the state statute is unconstitutional and therefore, should automatically be eligible for review by this Court. Once again, it is fundamentally clear to this Respondent that state court final judgments cannot be reviewed by this Court until all of the state appellate remedies have been exhausted. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed. 2nd 206, 222- 23 (1983). Also, please see the Fifth Circuit's Opinion in this cause and the cases cited therein which has been attached to other briefs filed herein and to which reference is made for all purposes. NO CAUSE OF ACTION ON WHICH FEDERAL COURT MAY GRANT RELIEF AGAINST THIS RESPONDENT This Respondert is the duly elected and certified District Clerk of McLennan County, Texas. By Texas statute (RS 1899) and State Constitution (Art. V, Sec. 9), he is an officer of the court and is obligated to file and record in his office the everyday business of the four District Courts in his county. In the original causes upon which this a ee federal appeal is based and in Respondent's official capacity, he was given certain Orders duly entered by the State District Courts and he properly filed said Orders and issued whatever writs and took whatever other action the Orders required him to take. Further, at no time did he attempt to interpret or take it upon himself to enforce Texas Family Code Ann. §11.18(a) and there is no allegation to this effect in the Petitioners’ complaint. This Respondent stands ready at all times to abide by the Orders of any court having legal jurisdiction over the operation of his office. De Los Fuentes v. MacDonald, 85 Tex. 132, 20 S.W.43; Binge v. Foster, 47 S.W.2d 862. CONCLUSION It is this Respondent's opinion that the rules of law applicable to thts case, federa’, state and statutory, compel a finding that the application for Writ of Certiorari sought herein is frivolous on its face as it relites to him since there is nothing in the Petitioners' Application to this Court or their original complaint that is evidentiary or can be argued on its merits. Hagerty v. Succession of Clements, supra, 749 F.2d 222. This Respondent has done nothing to harm the Petitioners herein but has only performed his duties as required by law. Therefore, it is submitted to this Court that the Petition of Writ of Certiorari te tne Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals should in all things be denied and should this Court believe it appropriate, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988 and U.S. Sup. Ct. Rule 49.2, attorneys fees in favor of this Respondent should be awarded against the Petitioners. Respectfully submitted, DONALD 0. HALL HALL & KETTLER, P.C. 504 Austin Avenue Waco, Texas 76701-2195 (817) 756-4471 als O, aee onalid 0. Hall State Bar No. 08748000 ATTORNEY FOR RESPONDENT, JOE JOHNSON CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Donald 0. Hall, counsel of record for Respondent, Joe Johnson, do hereby certify that on this ..¢ day of October, 1985, three (3) copies of the above and foregoing Brief for Respondent were served by mail on the following: Charles Reed, Pro Se 1307 Royal Waco, Texas 76710 Roland Duty, Pro Se 703 N. Valley Mills Waco, Texas 76710 Larry 0. Brady NAMAN, HOWELL, SMITH & LEE Texas Center P. 0. Box 1470 Waco, Texas 76/03 ATTORNEY FOR SUE STEPP RAYBOLD Scott Lyford P. 0. Box 12548 + Austin, Texas 78711 ATTORNEY FOR HON. BILL LOGUE LaNelle L. McNamara McNAMARA & McNAMARA 500 Republic Bank Tower Waco, Texas 76701 ATTORNEY FOR JAMES 0. TERRELL Steven M. Smoot OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL State Bar of Texas P. 0. Box 12487 Austin, Texas 78722 ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385018_0683%3A5. Public record. Not legal advice.