WILLIAM DAVID OWENS JR v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES ET AL (2025)

ORDER

Before the Court are the “Motion to Supplement Record with State Court Audio Transcript”¹ and the “Motion to Consolidate Jurisdictional Challenge”² (together “the Motions”), filed by William-David Owens, Jr. (“Plaintiff”).

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his Complaint for Declaratory, Injunctive, and Monetary Relief on or about October 24, 2025 asserting claims arising under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, treaties between the United States and Plaintiff's tribe (the Louisiana Band of Choctaws), and other federal civil rights laws including 42 U.S.C. § 1983.³ More specifically, Plaintiff claims that “defendants' enforcement of a fishing license statute against Plaintiff violates federal treaty obligations and the Supremacy Clause.”⁴ Plaintiff names as defendants the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (“LDWF”), Attorney Alvin Landry, Attorney Cole Garrett, Administrative Law Judge William Cooper, and Corporal Joshua LeBoeuf.⁵ The same day the Complaint was filed, Plaintiff filed the Motions.⁶ The Motion to Supplement Record with State Court Audio Transcript, requests an order compelling the production of an audio recording ⁷ from a state court proceeding. Through the Motion to Consolidate Jurisdictional Challenge, Plaintiff seeks to have the court “consolidate and rule upon all jurisdictional challenges raised in Plaintiff's filings before any further proceedings are allowed to continue.”⁸

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS

A. A Magistrate Judge Has Statutory Authority to Rule on Pre-Trial Matters and Other Motions Referred by a District Judge

At the outset, this Order addresses Plaintiff's demand that “all proceedings, hearings, and rulings be reserved to an Article III judge, and that no administrative judge, hearing officer, or magistrate issue orders, recommendation, or interference with the adjudication of treaty-protected rights.⁹ A magistrate judge has authority to hear and determine pre-trial matters and other matters referred to them by a district judge. For the Motions, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) allows a district judge “to designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court.”¹⁰ Though certain motions are exempt from this authority and require the magistrate judge to issue a report and recommendation, neither of these Motions require report and recommendation.¹¹ If Plaintiff objects to a direct ruling by the magistrate judge, the Article III judge retains ultimate authority to “reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”¹² The Motions have been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for disposition, which is statutorily authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 636.¹³ Therefore, the Motions (and any other matters so authorized), will be resolved by direct ruling. For any motions referred to the undersigned magistrate judge that cannot be resolved by direct ruling, a report and recommendation will issue.

B. Motion to Supplement Record with State Court Audio Transcript

Through the Motion to Supplement Record with State Court Audio Transcript (“the Motion to Supplement Record”),¹⁴ Plaintiff asks the Court to direct the appropriate state court to produce a copy of the audio recording from a January 15, 2025 hearing because it allegedly differs from the written transcript of the proceeding.¹⁵

The audio recording is the type of information that would be sought during discovery, which cannot begin until the named defendants have made an appearance and the parties have held a discovery conference.¹⁶ Furthermore, there is no evidence that Plaintiff has sought to retrieve this audio recording himself.¹⁷ No summons has been issued for any defendants and no defendants have made an appearance in this case. Therefore, the defendants cannot oppose the Motion to Supplement Record and discovery has not begun. For these reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Record is premature, and will be denied without prejudice to refiling after the defendants have made an appearance and the parties have had an opportunity to engage in discovery.¹⁸

C. Motion to Consolidate Jurisdictional Challenge

Through the Motion to Consolidate Jurisdictional Challenge (“the Motion to Consolidate”),¹⁹ Plaintiff seeks to have the Court “consolidate and rule upon all jurisdictional challenges raised in Plaintiff's filings before any further proceedings are allowed to continue.”²⁰ The Motion to Consolidate requests a “consolidation” of any jurisdictional rulings, not ruling on the merits of any jurisdictional issues at this time. In support of the Motion to Consolidate, Plaintiff cites to a document titled “A Judicial Notice and Memorandum of Law,” which is attached to the Complaint.²¹ In this memorandum, Plaintiff states that this case is a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction.²² He also states that the state and administrative courts do not have jurisdiction over the “Choctaw people.”²³ Additionally, Plaintiff argues that Article III Judges are the only judges who have authority to adjudicate treaty rights.²⁴

It is not clear what relief Plaintiff seeks. Though the Memorandum of Law attached to the Complaint raises several jurisdictional issues, it is focused on the substance of those jurisdictional issues and provides no authority for consolidating these challenges. The Motion to Consolidate does not state what challenges Plaintiff seeks ruling on or ask for relief regarding any specific jurisdictional issues. Motions filed with the court must “state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order” and “state the relief sought.”²⁵ Plaintiff's general prayer that the Court “rule upon all jurisdictional challenges raised in Plaintiff's filings” is not compliant with Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B) because it fails to state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order or what jurisdictional relief Plaintiff seeks. The Court cannot grant relief if it is unable to determine what relief is requested, as is the case with the Motion to Consolidate.

Additionally, consolidating all jurisdictional challenges would require the Court to rule on the LDWF's jurisdiction over Plaintiff to issue a fine and the administrative law judge's authority to enforce that fine.²⁶ These issues go to the ultimate merits of the case. As no defendants have made an appearance or been given a chance to defend against the claims brought, ruling on the merits at this stage is premature.²⁷

The defendants also have the right to oppose the Motion to Consolidate as this is not the type of motion the Court can grant ex parte.²⁸ The defendants cannot exercise their opposition rights until they have notice of the lawsuit and the motion.

Therefore, Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate Jurisdictional Challenge will be denied as non-compliant with Rule 7 and as premature. The denial is without prejudice to reurging the motion once defendants are served and make an appearance. If Plaintiff refiles the Motion to Consolidate, he should state with particularity the jurisdictional challenges he seeks to consolidate and provide support for the consolidation of the jurisdictional challenges, not just the merits of the potential jurisdictional challenges.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Supplement Record with State Court Audio Transcript,²⁹ filed by Plaintiff William-David Owens, Jr., is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to reurging as no defendant has appeared in this case and discovery has not begun.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Consolidate Jurisdictional Challenge,³⁰ filed by Plaintiff William-David Owens, Jr., is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to reurging as it is (1) non-compliant with Rule 7 because the motion does state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order and the relief sought is vague and (2) premature because defendants have not made an appearance in this matter. If Plaintiff refiles a motion to consolidate regarding jurisdictional challenges, he should state with particularity what jurisdictional challenges he seeks to consolidate and provide support for the consolidation of those challenges. Further, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks to have the court consolidate his jurisdictional challenge to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries' authority to issue a fine and administrative court's authority to enforce that fine, these challenges to the merits of the case. If Plaintiff requests a ruling on the merits, he must file the appropriate motion at the appropriate time in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's Local Rules.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall send this Order to Plaintiff by regular and by certified mail, return receipt requested to the address listed on PACER.

Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on November 14, 2025.

FOOTNOTES

1.   R. Doc. 4.

2.   R. Doc. 5.

3.   R. Doc. 1.

4.   R. Doc. 1, p. 3, ¶ 13.

5.   R. Doc. 1, pp. 2-3.

6.   R. Docs. 4, 5.

7.   Though the title of the motion references production of a transcript, the motion seeks the audio recording of the hearing on the basis that the official transcript is incomplete.

8.   R. Doc. 5.

9.   See R. Doc. 1-4, ¶ 7 (“Judicial Notice and Demand for Article III Review Only”); see also R. Doc. 1-5, ¶ 4 (“Notice of Non-Consent to Magistrate Jurisdiction”) (“No consent, implied or expressed, is given to any Article I or administrative tribunal to preside over, issue orders in, or make recommendations regarding any matter in this proceeding.”).

10.   See also Local Rule 72(b) (“Referral of Proceedings in Civil Matters. Proceedings in civil matters may be referred to a Magistrate Judge for decision or for report and recommendation, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and any standing orders issued by the District Judge to whom the case is assigned.”); Local Rule 73 (further describing the magistrate judge's authority).

11.   See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A-C), which states:(b)(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary--(A) a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action. A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.(B) a judge may also designate a magistrate judge to conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and to submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition, by a judge of the court, of any motion excepted in subparagraph (A), of applications for posttrial1 relief made by individuals convicted of criminal offenses and of prisoner petitions challenging conditions of confinement.(C) the magistrate judge shall file his proposed findings and recommendations under subparagraph(B) with the court and a copy shall forthwith be mailed to all parties.Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court. A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made. A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.

12.   28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

13.   Plaintiff cites Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832), Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band, 526 U.S. 172 (1999), and N. Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982) in support of the proposition that non-Article III judges and forums do not have authority over this case. See R. Doc. 1-4, ¶¶ 5-6, R. Doc. 1-5, ¶ 3. None of these cases restrict a magistrate judge's authority to adjudicate pre-trial matters and matters referred to them for report and recommendation under 28 U.S.C. § 636.

14.   R. Doc. 4.

15.   Id. at pp. 1-2.

16.   See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1) (“A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f), except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B), or when authorized by these rules, by stipulation, or by court order.”).

17.   See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) (“On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.”).

18.   While Plaintiff cites Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(e) as bases for the relief sought, neither of these rules authorizes this Court to order a state court to provide an audio recording of a state court proceeding. These rules relate this Court's ability to correct its own record, not the records of a state court.

19.   R. Doc. 5.

20.   Id. at p. 1.

21.   R. Doc. 1-4.

22.   R. Doc. 1-4 ¶¶ 2B, 7.

23.   R. Doc. 1-4, ¶ 2A.

24.   Plaintiff specifically alleges that no administrative judge or magistrate judge may issue orders, issue recommendations, or interfere with the adjudication of treaty-protected rights. R. Doc. 1-4, ¶ 7.

25.   Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1)(B-C).

26.   R. Doc. 1, p. 3, ¶ 13.

27.   See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (requiring service of the complaint); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A) (requiring a defendant to serve an answer within 21 days after being served with the complaint).

28.   A motion that cannot be heard ex parte must be served on the defendants under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1)(D). The Motion to Consolidate is not the sort of motion the Court may hear ex parte as no consent has been sought nor could it be sought as no defendants have made an appearance. Under Local Rule 7(f), parties have twenty-one (21) days after service of a motion to oppose it. The rule provides further support that defendants must be served with the motion and be given time to oppose it.

29.   R. Doc. 4.

30.   R. Doc. 5.

ERIN WILDER-DOOMES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE