Cratelyn J. Henderson v. Steve Holloway

No. 56,547-CA (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. Dec. 3, 2025) · Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit · December 3, 2025 · No. 56,547-CA

Summary

The Louisiana Second Circuit Court of Appeal reviewed a protective order issued in favor of Cratelyn J. Henderson against Steve Holloway. The court affirmed the issuance of the protective order, reversed the firearm prohibition and the two-year duration, and remanded for the trial court to reduce the duration to the maximum period authorized by Louisiana law.

Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit
Writing for the Court
Marcotte, J.; Pitman, J.; Stephens, J.
Jurisdiction
Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit
Decision date
December 3, 2025
Docket number
56,547-CA
Procedural posture
Steve Holloway appealed the trial court's granting of a protective order in favor of Cratelyn J. Henderson.
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Steve Holloway v. Cratelyn J. Henderson
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

appellate procedurestatutory interpretationremediescivil procedureequitable relief

Practice areas

civil procedureappellate procedureprotective ordersstatutory interpretationremedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court applied the correct statutory definition of stalking.
  2. Whether the evidence supported a finding that Holloway represented a credible threat to the physical safety of a qualifying person under the protective-order statute.
  3. Whether the trial court could prohibit Holloway from possessing a firearm under La. R.S. 46:2136.3.
  4. Whether the trial court could impose a two-year duration for the protective order.

Holdings

  1. The trial court applied the correct definition of stalking, and Holloway's assignment of error on that issue was without merit.
  2. The trial court correctly issued a protective order in favor of Henderson against Holloway.
  3. The trial court erred by prohibiting Holloway from possessing a firearm because he was not a family member, household member, or dating partner of Henderson.
  4. The trial court erred in imposing a two-year duration and was required to reduce the fixed duration to the maximum period allowed by La. R.S. 46:2136(F).

Key quotations

Holloway, Sr. 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. (at 2)
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. (at 3)

Factual background

Henderson alleged that on January 1, 2025, Holloway approached him, used profane language, shoved and punched him, and displayed what Henderson perceived to be a gun while threatening his life. Henderson sought protective orders against Holloway, and the trial court issued one in Henderson's favor.

Procedural history

Henderson filed petitions for protective orders and petitions for protection from stalking against Holloway. On January 24, 2025, the Forty-Second Judicial District Court for the Parish of DeSoto granted a protective order against Holloway. The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, affirmed the issuance of the protective order, reversed the firearm-possession prohibition and the two-year duration, and remanded with instructions.

Remand instructions

The trial court must remove the firearm-possession prohibition and reduce the fixed duration of the protective order to the maximum allowable period under La. R.S. 46:2136(F).

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…