Biton v. Jackson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ETTI BITON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-23-968-SLP
)
JEFFREY JACKSON, )
)
Defendant. )
O R D E R
Before the Court is the Motion for Judgment Lien on Real Property [Doc. No. 48]
filed by Plaintiff, Etti Biton, pro se.1 As explained in prior Orders [Doc. Nos. 33, 40],
Plaintiff seeks to collect on the Default Judgment [Doc. No. 25] entered in this matter,
which included monetary damages of $54,375.50 and required monthly payments to
Plaintiff pursuant to the I-864 Affidavit of Support. See id.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Judgment Lien [Doc. No. 48] is procedurally improper. The
procedure for a judgment lien under Oklahoma law is set forth in 12 Okla. Stat. § 706(B).
That statute provides:
A judgment to which this section applies shall be a lien on the real estate of
the judgment debtor within a county only from and after a Statement of
Judgment made by the judgment creditor or the judgment creditor’s attorney,
substantially in the form prescribed by the Administrative Director of the
Courts, has been filed in the office of the county clerk in that county.
1 Plaintiff also filed: a Motion for Non-Continuing Bank Levy [Doc. No. 42]; a Motion for
Continuing Writ of Garnishment [Doc. No. 43]; a Motion for Non-Continuing Writ of
Garnishment [Doc. No. 44]; a Motion for Hearing on Assets [Doc. No. 45]; a Motion for
Continuing Bank Levy [Doc. No. 46]; and a Motion for Writ of Execution on Vehicles and
Personal Property [Doc. No. 49]. By separate order, the Court will refer those motions to a United
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.
Case 5:23-cv-00968-SLP Document 50 Filed 03/18/25 Page 1 of 2

2
Id. at § 706(B). Plaintiff must follow that procedure to obtain the relief she seeks, and this
Court is without authority to issue a judgment lien on Defendant’s real property.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion [Doc. No. 48] is DENIED.
Plaintiff has also filed various motions alleging that Defendant is concealing or
transferring assets to avoid payment of the judgment. See, e.g., [Doc. Nos. 37, 38, 39, 45].
Among those motions is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Doc. No. 39], which seeks an order
compelling post judgment discovery regarding Defendant’s assets. That Motion is set for
hearing on Tuesday, March 18, 2025. [Doc. No. 41].2
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judgment Lien on Real
Property [Doc. No. 48] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite [Doc. No. 37] is
DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of March, 2025.
2 Plaintiff filed a Supplement [Doc. No. 47] to her Motion for Hearing on Assets [Doc. No. 45],
requesting that the hearing on assets be combined with the Motion to Compel hearing. See [Doc.
No. 47]. The Court declines to do so because it is separately referring the Motion for Hearing on
Assets for consideration by a United States Magistrate Judge. Additionally, the relief requested in
Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite [Doc. No. 37] (i.e., an order preventing Defendant from concealing
or transferring assets) is duplicative of that sought via her Motion for Hearing on Assets, therefore
the Motion to Expedite [Doc. No. 37] is DENIED as MOOT.
Case 5:23-cv-00968-SLP Document 50 Filed 03/18/25 Page 2 of 2