Stacy Meaux v. Larry Moore

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

25-43

STACY MEAUX

VERSUS

LARRY MOORE, ET AL.

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF VERMILION, NO. 101401-K
HONORABLE MICHELE S. BILLEAUD, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

CANDYCE G. PERRET

JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Candyce G. Perret, Charles G. Fitzgerald, and Guy E.
Bradberry, Judges.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Stacy Michael Meaux
In Proper Person
1404 Maude Avenue
Abbeville, LA 70510
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

Larry Moore, Sr.
In Proper Person
1408 Maude Ave.
Abbeville, LA 70510
FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

Louis Simon
In Proper Person
1403 Maude Ave.
Abbeville, LA 70510
DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

Keith Scott
In Proper Person
1408 Maude Avenue
Abbeville, LA 70510
DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

Kemeisha Scott
In Proper Person
1408 Maude Ave.
Abbeville, LA 70510
DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

Marylinn Boudreaux
In Proper Person
1403 Maude Ave.
Abbeville, LA 70510
DEFENDANT /APPELLEE

Perret, Judge.

On January 28, 2025, this court issued, sua sponte, a rule ordering the

Plaintiff-Appellant, Stacy Meaux, to show cause, by brief only, why the appeal in

this matter should not be dismissed as having been taken from a non-appealable,

interlocutory order. Plaintiff filed a response to the rule. For the reasons given

herein, we dismiss the appeal.

In the trial court below, Mr. Meaux sought a temporary restraining order

(TRO) against Defendants who appear to be several of his neighbors for events

stemming as far back as 2008, including disputes over trash, alleged illegal entries,

and possible threats of violence. Also listed as Defendants are the City of

Abbeville, the Vermillion Parish Sheriff’s Office, the Vermillion Parish Police

Jury, and the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office, though there is no clear reason

for their inclusion. The trial court held a hearing on the matter, hearing testimony

from Mr. Meaux, as well as several of the Defendants. Thereafter, the trial court

denied Mr. Meaux’s request for the TRO. The exact judgment being appealed

previously came before this court on application for supervisory writs, docket

number 24-559, which was denied on December 3, 2024. This court has no

indication at this time that Mr. Meaux has appealed that writ ruling to the

Louisiana Supreme Court. Instead, Mr. Meaux filed the current appeal, seeking a

second review of the same trial court ruling denying the TRO.

Louisiana Civil Code of Procedure Article 3612 states (emphasis added):

“[t]here shall be no appeal from an order relating to a temporary restraining order.”

Should a party be aggrieved by a decision regarding a temporary restraining order,

“the party may seek review by way of an application for supervisory writs to the

court of appeal.” Thiele v. Pembo, 23-213, p. 6 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/13/24), 384

So.3d 1067, 1071 (emphasis added). See also Lepine v. Lepine, 17-45 (La.App. 5

Cir. 6/15/17), 223 So.3d 666; Harper v. Harper, 00-1425 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/30/01),

777 So.2d 1275, writ denied, 01-768 (La. 5/11/01), 792 So.2d 736.

Mr. Meaux is before us seeking a full appeal of the judgment rejecting his

TRO. Our law is clear that the only appellate court review allowed for any

decision concerning a TRO is by an application for supervisory writs, which Mr.

Meaux has already received from this court. No issues regarding the TRO are

properly before this Court on appeal, which is a separate procedure from a

supervisory writ. Accordingly, any allegations of error concerning that TRO

cannot be considered by way of the full appeal Mr. Meaux now seeks, and this

appeal must be dismissed in accordance with La.Civ.Code art. 3612.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION.
Uniform Rules―Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-16.3.

2