Parks v. AIG, No. 23-40044 (5th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 23-40044 Document: 00516960666 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/08/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED November 8, 2023 No. 23-40044 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Tonya Parks; Bennie Gibson; Francis Gibson; Nyanza Cook; Alexander Bednar, Plaintiffs—Appellants, versus AIG, an insurance company based in New York; Timothy Henderson, a removed Oklahoma Judge accused of crimes; David Prater, Oklahoma County District Attorney in his individual and official capacity; Mike Hunter, Resigned Oklahoma State Attorney General, individually and officially; Melissa Abernathy, Sheriff Deputy; Brett Slimp, Sheriff Deputy; Chicago Title, a California Insurance Company; Oklahoma County, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:22-CV-991 ______________________________ Before Graves, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-40044 Document: 00516960666 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/08/2023 No. 23-40044 Plaintiffs/appellants are whistleblowers who complain of harassment, retaliation, and civil violations by Defendants/appellees, stemming from actions taking place in Oklahoma. Approximately three weeks after filing suit, plaintiffs filed an “emergency motion for a temporary restraining order, for preliminary injunction, and for expedited briefing schedule.” Four days later, the district court denied the ex parte emergency motion and held that it would address the motion once defendants had been served and given the opportunity to respond. Two days later, the district court issued an order transferring the case to the Western District of Oklahoma. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s order denying the temporary restraining order and transferring venue. They also asked for relief in the form of “enlargement of time, stay of litigation to conduct ADR, and for special master.” The court denied both motions on January 12, 2023. On January 23, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion with this court “to set aside venue transfer, for preliminary injunction, and for writ of mandamus.” In their motion, Plaintiffs asked this court to issue a writ of mandamus to prevent the transfer of the case, and to grant a preliminary injunction. This court denied the Plaintiffs’ request in an unpublished order on February 7, 2023. Plaintiffs’ current appeal is duplicative of the request made in their January 2023 emergency motion, and because this court has already made a ruling on Plaintiffs’ request, we decline to rule again. Conclusion Plaintiffs’ appeal is hereby DISMISSED. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
