Ju’Kadynn Carter v. Stevie Holloway

No. 56,544-CA (La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. Dec. 3, 2025) · Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit · December 3, 2025 · No. 56,544-CA

Summary

The Louisiana Second Circuit reviewed Stevie Holloway’s appeal from a protective order obtained by Ju’Kadynn Carter. The court affirmed the issuance of the protective order, reversed the firearm-prohibition provision because Stevie was not a qualifying family, household, or dating partner, and remanded for reduction of the order’s duration to the maximum period allowed by statute.

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
56,544-CA
Procedural posture
Stevie Holloway appealed the Forty-Second Judicial District Court's issuance of a protective order in favor of Ju’Kadynn Carter.
Precedential value
Published memorandum opinion; precedential status identified as published.
Parties
Stevie Holloway v. Ju’Kadynn Carter
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

injunctionsremediesappellate procedurecivil procedure

Practice areas

protective ordersstalkingcivil procedureappellate procedureremedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the trial court applied the correct definition of stalking under La. R.S. 14:40.2.
  2. Whether Stevie Holloway represented a credible threat to the physical safety of a family member, household member, or dating partner within the meaning of the protective-order statute.
  3. Whether the trial court properly prohibited Stevie Holloway from possessing a firearm under La. R.S. 46:2136.3.
  4. Whether the trial court properly imposed a two-year duration for the protective order.

Holdings

  1. The trial court correctly applied the governing definition of stalking, and its issuance of a protective order in favor of Carter against Stevie Holloway was proper.
  2. The firearm prohibition was improper because Stevie Holloway was not a family member, household member, or dating partner of Carter.
  3. The trial court erred by granting the protective order for two years; the fixed duration must be reduced to the maximum period allowed by La. R.S. 46:2136(F).

Key quotations

Stevie is not a family member, household member, or dating partner of Carter’s.
The court also erred in granting the protective order for two years.

Factual background

Carter alleged that on January 1, 2025, Stevie Holloway and his father approached Carter's brother, Kylin Boykins, mistakenly believing Boykins was Carter. Carter alleged that the Holloways struck or attempted to strike Boykins, that Holloway's father drew a gun while Stevie had a bat, and that they chased Boykins from Joaquin to Logansport. Carter also referenced a prior fight involving Stevie and Carter.

Procedural history

Carter filed petitions for protective orders and protection from stalking against Stevie Holloway. The trial court granted Carter a protective order against Stevie, prohibited Stevie from possessing a firearm during the order, and imposed a two-year duration. Stevie appealed. The court of appeal affirmed issuance of the protective order, reversed the firearm prohibition, and remanded for reduction of the order's duration.

Remand instructions

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

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…