Christopher Rick Montez v. Orlando L. Garcia, David A. Ezra, Xavier Rodriguez,...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED October 28, 2025 WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS NM CHRISTOPHER RICK MONTEZ, § BY: ________________________________ DEPUTY § Plaintiff, § v. § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-CV-01243-MA ORLANDO L. GARCIA, DAVID A. § EZRA, XAVIER RODRIGUEZ, JASON § K. PULLIAM, and FRED BIERY, § § Defendant. § ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis,1 which motion had been referred to the Magistrate Court for a report and recommendation.

Any party who seeks review of all or a portion of a Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations must serve and file his or her written objections within fourteen days after being serviced with a copy of findings of the findings and recommendations.2 The time for filing objections has passed and no objections have been filed. Because no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the District Court need not conduct a de novo review.3 Accordingly, the District Court will review the unobjected-to proposed findings and recommendations to determine whether they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law.4 Dkt. No. 1.

2 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

3 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

4 Johnson v. Sw. Rsch. Inst., 210 F. Supp.3d 863, 864 (W.D. Tex. 2016) (citing U.S. v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.) (per curriam), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918 (1989); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2).

In this case, Plaintiff alleges that five District Judges serving in the San Antonio Division of the Western District of Texas lied under oath when they signed a joint order on August 25, 2023 barring Plaintiff from entering the San Antonio federal courthouse without permission and escort.5 This joint order was issued after Plaintiff was twice removed from the courthouse premises for verbal altercations with Court Security Officers, Deputy United States Marshals, and administrative staff and subsequently observed “swearing, shouting, and making various threats” outside of the courthouse.6 Plaintiff denies these events and seeks “[b]illions or [t]rillions” in damages.7 Plaintiff has previously been declared a vexatious litigant due to the “duplicative, harassing, and burdensome” nature of his extensive past legal filings and is enjoined from filing cases in the Western District of Texas without express leave by a District Judge.8 Plaintiff was not granted permission to file the case at hand. Nevertheless, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge’s decision to assess this case on its merits appropriate and in the interest of fair and efficient justice.9 On October 10, 2025, the Magistrate Court issued the Report and Recommendation, recommending that this Court deny Plaintiff’s motion and dismiss this case with prejudice without leave to amend.10 Finding Plaintiff’s claim to be “indisputably frivolous,” the Magistrate Court concluded that Plaintiff’s complaint, even if amended, would incapable of overcoming

5 Dkt. No. 1-1, at 5–6.

6 Id. Dkt. No 1–2.

8 Montez v. U.S. Fed. Courthouse, No. SA-22-CV-1301-JKP, 2023 WL 2072416, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 17, 2023), appeal dismissed, No. 23-50278, 2023 WL 7141114 (5th Cir. Aug. 7, 2023).

9 Dkt. No. 5, at 1–2.

10 Dkt. No, 5.

Defendant Judges’ absolute immunity for acts performed in the exercise of their judicial functions. !!

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation for clear error. Finding no clear error, the Court ACCEPTS the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. All of Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Any pending motion, request, or other matter is DENIED AS MOOT. A final judgement pursuant to Rule 58 will follow.

The Clerk of Court is instructed to send a copy of this Order by certified mail to Plaintiff at 1414 Drury Lane, San Antonio, Texas 78221.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DONE this 28" day of October, 2025, in San Antonio, Texas.

Wares MICAELA ALVAREZ SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Jd. at 2 (citing Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (per curiam) (finding that judges are absolutely immune for all judicial acts made with proper jurisdiction) (citing Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554 (1967) (finding judicial immunity even where a judge is accused of malicious intent).