Cratelyn J. Henderson v. Stevie Holloway

Judgment rendered December 3, 2025
Application for rehearing may be filed
within the delay allowed by Art. 2166,
La. C.C.P.

No. 56,543-CA
No. 56,544-CA
No. 56,545-CA
No. 56,546-CA
No. 56,547-CA
No. 56,548-CA
(Consolidated cases)

COURT OF APPEAL
SECOND CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA

*****

No. 56,548-CA

CRATELYN J. HENDERSON Plaintiff-Appellee

versus

STEVIE HOLLOWAY Defendant-Appellant

*****

Appealed from the
Forty-Second Judicial District Court for the
Parish of DeSoto, Louisiana
Trial Court No. 85,758

Honorable Amy Burford McCartney, Chief Judge

*****

SMITHERMAN, HILL & BRICE, L.C. Counsel for Appellant
By: F. Weber Hill

CRATELYN J. HENDERSON In Proper Person

*****

Before PITMAN, STEPHENS, and MARCOTTE, JJ.

STEPHENS, J., concurs in the result.

MARCOTTE, J.

These consolidated civil appeals arise out the 42nd Judicial District

Court, Parish of DeSoto, the Honorable Amy Burford McCartney and the

Honorable Nicholas E. Gaspar presiding. Defendant Steve Holloway

(“Holloway, Sr.”) appeals the trial court’s granting of three protective orders

against him. Defendant Stevie Holloway (“Stevie”) also appeals the trial

court’s granting of three protective orders against him. For the following

reasons, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions. A

separate opinion is issued for each protective order. This memorandum

opinion is issued in compliance with U.R.C.A. 2-16.1(B).

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 3, 2025, Cratelyn Henderson (“Henderson”) filed two

petitions for protective orders against Holloway, Sr. and his son, Stevie

(together “the Holloways”), alleging that, on January 1, 2025, “[Holloway,

Sr.] approached me. He used profane language, shoved, and punched me.

The defendant also pulled a weapon, which I perceived to be a gun,

threatening my life.” He said that Stevie approached him holding a bat and

threatened to harm him. Henderson said that there was a prior incident in

class where Stevie threw things at him and slapped him in the head.

Henderson said that, in turn, he pushed Stevie.

On January 16, 2025, Henderson filed two petitions for protection

from stalking against the Holloways alleging the same facts. For a recitation

of the facts and procedural history, see Ju’Kadynn Carter v. Steve Holloway,

56,543 (La. App. 2 Cir. 12/3/25).

On January 16, 2025, Judge Gasper granted a protective order in favor

of Henderson against Stevie. He now appeals.

DISCUSSION

Stevie assigns the following errors:

(1) The trial court erred in failing to apply the correct definition of stalking
in accordance with La. R.S. 14:40.2.

(2) The trial court erred in finding that Stevie represented a credible threat to
the physical safety of a family member, household member, or dating
partner.

(3) The trial court erred in prohibiting the possession of a firearm for the
duration of the protective order by Stevie pursuant to La. R.S. 46:2136.3.

(4) The trial court erred in granting the protective order for a duration of two
years.

For the reasons expressed in Ju’Kadynn Carter v. Steve Holloway,

supra, Stevie’s first assignment of error is without merit. The trial court was

correct in issuing a protective order in favor of Henderson against him. That

part of the trial court’s ruling is affirmed. For the reasons articulated in

Ju’Kadynn Carter v. Steve Holloway, supra, appellant’s remaining

assignments of error have merit. Stevie is not a family member, household

member, or dating partner of Henderson’s. Therefore, the trial court should

not have prohibited him from possessing a firearm. That part of the trial

court’s ruling is reversed. The court also erred in granting the protective

order for two years. We remand the case to the trial court to reduce the fixed

time for the protective order to the maximum allowable period in accordance

with La. R.S. 46:2136(F).

2

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the trial court’s granting of a protective

order against Stevie Holloway in favor of Cratelyn J. Henderson is affirmed

in part, reversed in part, and remanded in accordance with this opinion. The

costs of the appeal are assessed to appellant.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS.

3