Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

Keaton v. Milks — Court dismissed prisoner’s civil-rights claims

Reported / Citable

Case
Adrian Aldon Keaton v. Keith A. Milks, et al.
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Judge
Amos L. Mazzant
Date Decided
May 28, 2026
Docket No.
4:23-cv-00575
Topics
Prisoner litigation; Civil rights; Judicial immunity; Heck bar

Background

Pro se plaintiff Adrian Aldon Keaton brought claims against Keith A. Milks and other defendants in the Eastern District of Texas. The action was referred to a magistrate judge, who recommended dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e).

Keaton objected to the April 22, 2026 report and recommendation. The district court conducted de novo review of those objections.

The Court’s Holding

Judge Amos L. Mazzant overruled Keaton’s objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, and dismissed the action. The court concluded that the magistrate judge’s findings and conclusions were correct and that the objections lacked merit as to the ultimate findings.

The court dismissed without prejudice the official-capacity claims against Judge Phillips and Brooks. It dismissed with prejudice the individual-capacity claims against Judge Phillips and Brooks, claims against Haney, Dunn, Cardwell, and Richardson, and the excessive-force, retaliation, and bystander-liability claims. It also dismissed with prejudice claims alleging prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and trial-court error unless and until Keaton can show that his conviction has been reversed, expunged, or otherwise set aside.

Key Takeaways

  • The court adopted the magistrate judge’s dismissal recommendation after de novo review of Keaton’s objections.
  • Official-capacity claims against Judge Phillips and Brooks were dismissed without prejudice; the corresponding individual-capacity claims were dismissed with prejudice.
  • Challenges implicating Keaton’s conviction cannot proceed unless he establishes that the conviction has been invalidated.

Why It Matters

The order shows the distinct treatment of claims in different capacities and of claims that would call into question an existing conviction. The clerk was directed to close the case.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top