Haase v. Rivas-Molloy et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
RICHARD ALAN HAASE,
Plaintiff,
versus
HON. VERONICA RIVAS-
MOLLOY, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-05063
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDA AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Plaintiff Richard Haase proceeds here pro se. His
motion for reconsideration is denied. Dkt 84.
1. Background
On August 4, 2026, Magistrate Judge Christina Bryan
filed Memoranda and Recommendations recommending
dismissal of all of Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. Dkts 63
& 64. This included claims against (i) Bank of America,
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, and Morgan
Stanley ABS Capital I, Inc for civil conspiracy regarding
mortgaged property, and (ii) Justices Veronica Rivas-
Malloy, Richard Hightower, April Farris, and Judges
Maggie Jaramillo-Perez, and Tameika Carter for violations
of due process. These groups are referred to here
respectively as the Defendant Banks and the Defendant
Justices and Judges.
On August 25, 2026, the undersigned adopted the
Memoranda and Recommendations of the Magistrate
Judge as the Memoranda and Order of the Court. Dkt 70.
No objections were at that time pending, and the time to
make such filing had expired.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
October 12, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05063 Document 90 Filed 10/09/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

2
On August 26, 2026, Plaintiff filed objections to the
recommendation at Dkt 63. Dkt 71.
On August 31, 2026, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
seeking appellate review of the adoption order. Dkt 74.
On September 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for
extension of time to file objections, which asserted that
Dkt 64 “was not delivered to Plaintiff until August 20,
2026.” Dkt 80 at 1.
On September 9, 2026, the motion to extend time was
denied as moot because the adoption order had already
been entered. Dkt 83, citing Dkt 70.
On September 11, 2026, Plaintiff filed objections to
Dkt 64, including a request for reconsideration. Dkt 84; see
id at 14 (requesting reconsideration to prevent “manifest
injustice”). The certificate of service indicates that this
filing “was served August 27, 2026, by First Class Mail.”
Id at 15.
2. Jurisdiction
The request within the most recent objections, at
Dkt 84, is construed as a motion for reconsideration of the
order adopting the Memoranda and Recommendations of
the Magistrate Judge pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 59(e). See Mangieri v Clifton, 29 F3d 1012, 1015
n 5 (5th Cir 1994).
Jurisdiction exists to resolve the pending motion for
reconsideration under Rule 4(a)(4)(B)(i) of the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure. It provides that a timely filed
motion to the district court under Rule 59(e) renders a
notice of appeal ineffective until an order is entered
disposing of the motion. That is the situation here when
construing the procedural posture most favorably to the
Plaintiff.
3. Reconsideration
Altering or amending a judgment under Rule 59(e) is
appropriate only when (i) there has been an intervening
change in controlling law, (ii) the party seeking relief
presents new, previously unavailable evidence, or
(iii) relief is necessary to correct a manifest error of law or
Case 4:25-cv-05063 Document 90 Filed 10/09/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

3
fact. Demahy v Schwarz Pharma, Inc, 702 F3d 177, 182
(5th Cir 2012). A motion to alter or amend is “not the
proper vehicle for rehashing evidence, legal theories, or
arguments that could have been offered or raised before the
entry of judgment.” Templet v HydroChem Inc, 367 F3d
473, 478–79 (5th Cir 2004), citing Simon v United States,
891 F2d 1154, 1159 (5th Cir 1990).
Plaintiff contends that “there has been a clear error of
law and fact.” Dkt 84 at 14. He further argues that failure
to reconsider would result in “manifest injustice.” Ibid,
citing Schiller v Physicians Resource Group, Inc, 342 F3d
563, 567 (5th Cir 2003).
Plaintiff filed two sets of objections. See Dkts 71 & 84.
Construed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff with
mailing and receipt dates in mind, both sets are now
deemed timely. As such, they have been reviewed entirely
de novo. No reconsideration is warranted to the original
disposition because the objections are here found to lack
merit.
Judge Bryan originally recommended that the pending
motions to dismiss should be granted, with all claims
against the Defendants Banks and Defendant Justices and
Judges being dismissed with prejudice. Dkts 63 at 13 & 64
at 15. This included recommendation that the claims
against Certificate Holders of Morgan Stanley Trust be
dismissed sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. Dkt 63 at 13.
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
Case 4:25-cv-05063 Document 90 Filed 10/09/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

4
Plaintiff objects that the Magistrate Judge erroneously
applied Rooker–Feldman abstention and improperly
resolved factual disputes. Dkt 71 at 7–11. He argues that
his claims against Defendant Banks shouldn’t be dismissed
even if the state-court litigation does overlap with the
present controversy. Id at 11. He also contends that the
Magistrate Judge erred by applying judicial immunity too
broadly and thus erred in finding his claims futile. Dkt 84
at 7–12. He argues that, while judicial immunity may limit
relief recoverable from the Defendant Justices and Judges,
it wouldn’t prevent Plaintiff from pleading a viable
conspiracy claim. Id at 11–12. He also contends that the
Magistrate Judge erred by creating a “prejudicial false
narrative.” Dkts 71 at 12–14 & 84 at 12–14.
Upon de novo review and determination, the objections
lack merit. The Magistrate Judge thoroughly and
thoughtfully considered and rejected these arguments in
the Memoranda and Recommendations. Dkts 63 & 64.
The Magistrate Judge correctly surveyed a vast
procedural history spanning two decades and found that
relitigating state-court judgments implicates the Rooker–
Feldman doctrine. Dkt 63 at 2–11. As such, consistent with
the instruction of the Fifth Circuit in Liedtke v State Bar of
Texas, she appropriately concluded that the current
litigation is “inextricably intertwined” with review of a
state-court judgment. Id at 7–8, quoting 18 F3d 315, 318
(5th Cir 1994).
She also correctly interpreted the breadth of judicial
immunity as applied in this context. Dkt 64 at 9–11.
Consistent with the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Ballard v
Wall, she rightly concluded that all of Plaintiff’s claims
against the Defendant Justices and Judges were taken in
their judicial capacity. Dkt 64 at 9–10, quoting 413 F3d
510, 515 (5th Cir 2005).
4. Conclusion
On de novo review and determination, the objections by
Plaintiff Richard Alan Haase to the Memoranda and
Case 4:25-cv-05063 Document 90 Filed 10/09/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

5
Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED.
Dkts 71 & 84.
No clear error otherwise appears upon review and
consideration of the very thorough Memoranda and
Recommendations, the record, and the applicable law.
The motion by Richard Haase for reconsideration of the
adoption order is DENIED. Dkt 84.
For the avoidance of doubt, the prior rulings are now
reiterated here and pertain. See Dkt 70.
The Memoranda and Recommendations of the
Magistrate Judge are ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkts 63 & 64.
The motions to dismiss by the Defendant Banks are
GRANTED. Dkts 16, 40 & 44.
The motions to dismiss by the Defendant Justices and
Judges are GRANTED. Dkts 12 & 32.
The claims against Certificate Holders of the Morgan
Stanley Trust are also dismissed sua sponte.
All claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
A final judgment will enter upon conclusion of other
matters that remain pending. See Dkt 89.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on October 9, 2026, at Houston, Texas.
_______________________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
Case 4:25-cv-05063 Document 90 Filed 10/09/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5