Justia Lawyer Rating
Avvo Clients' Choice Award
Texas Women Lawyers
Top Tier Lawyers
Lawyers of Distinction
Avvo Rating
Top 10 Criminal Defense Attorney and Practice Magazine
Expertise Criminal Defense Lawyers in Houston
Top Ranking Criminal Defense Law Firm

Case Results

Susan J. Clouthier and her firm have handled dozens of appeals and writs of habeas corpus in courts throughout the State of Texas, the United States Supreme Court, Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals and United States District Courts. Ms. Clouthier has also handled a number of appellate motions seeking leave to amend or to dismiss appeals in various courts.

While each case must be evaluated on its own merit, a few of Ms. Clouthier's recent notable successes are as follows:


Converse v. City of Kemah, 961 F.3d 771 (5th Cir. 2020).

After the district court granted a motion to dismiss in favor of the police department on the grounds of qualified immunity, Appellant appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit who, after Ms. Clouthier's oral argument, reversed the district court's order and remanded the case for trial.


Goel v. Tucker, No. 19-03005 (S.D. Tex. Bankr. Oct. 27, 2020).

- Appeal from an order denying Appellant’s motion to set aside the default judgment, JUDGMENT VACATED

In an adversary proceeding in the Southern District of Texas Bankruptcy Court, the court entered a default money judgment against Appellant, and Appellant moved to have the judgment set aside. The court denied the motion. Appellant retained Clouthier Law to appeal the order. Ultimately, the court vacated the judgment against Appellant and ordered a new trial.


In the Marriage of Jones v. Jones, No. 2019-85209 (309th Dist. Court, Harris County, Texas).

- Motion for New Trial and to Set Aside the Default Judgment, JUDGMENT VACATED, GRANTED NEW TRIAL

Petitioner obtained a default judgment in a divorce proceeding which contained provisions that negatively impacted Respondent. Respondent then retained Clouthier Law to file a Motion for New Trial. Clouthier Law successfully had the judgment vacated, and the court ordered a new trial.


United States v. Dinh, No. H-20-2245 (S.D. Tex. Sep. 28, 2020).

- Successive § 2255 Motion to Vacate Sentence, CONVICTION VACATED

After the Supreme Court decided U.S. v. Davis, Petitioner retained Clouthier Law to file a successive § 2255 asking the court to vacate his conviction for § 924(c). Counsel first obtained permission to file the successive § 2255 from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Then after filing the motion in the district court, the district court vacated Petitioner’s conviction and sentence for § 924(c) which reduced his sentence by 60 months.


In the Marriage of Wadleigh v. Wadleigh, No. 19-3247-F425 (425th Dist. Court, Williamson Cty, Texas).

- Motion to Modify, Correct or Reform the Judgment, JUDGMENT MODIFIED

The trial court entered an Agreed Final Decree of Divorce pursuant to a mediated settlement agreement (MSA). Petitioner’s counsel drafted the Final Decree, but the terms did not match the MSA agreed to by the parties. Respondent retained Clouthier Law to file a Motion to Modify, Correct or Reform the judgment. The trial court ultimately modified one of the terms of the Final Decree and entered an updated Final Decree of Divorce.


Sweet Water Well Service, LLC v. West Houston Airport Corp., No. 14-18-00596 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist. Aug. 27, 2020, no pet.).

- Appeal from Motion for Summary Judgment, REVERSED AND REMAND

The trial court entered a judgment against Appellant resulting from a Motion for Summary Judgment. Counsel filed an appeal to the 14th Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court erred in entering a judgment against Appellant and that the judgment should be reversed, and the Court of Appeals should grant a new trial. The Court of Appeals reversed the money judgment as well as the judgment for attorneys fees and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.


United States of America v. Franklin Joseph Ryle, 778 Fed.Appx. 598 (10th Cir. 2020).

- Federal 2255 motion, conviction vacated, defendant released from prison

Defendant pleaded guilty of one count of deprivation of rights and one count of using or carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence in 2009. In 2017, counsel filed a § 2255 motion to vacate arguing that his 60-month sentence for the gun crime was unconstitutional. After the district court denied the motion, counsel fought to amend the motion based on the Supreme Court's new decision in Sessions v. Dimaya, which found a similar statute unconstituonally vague. The district court similarly denied defendant's motion and refused to issue a certificate of appealability. Counsel filed a request for certificate of appealability with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. While it was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court issued U.S. v. Davis, holding § 924(c) unconstitutionally vague. On the same day, counsel notified the 10th Circuit of the new rule of law, subsequently the court issued its opinion vacating Mr. Ryle's 60-month sentence for the gun crime. Since he had served his sentence for the underlying conviction, Mr. Ryle was immediately released and reunited with his parents and children.


No. 09-20-00004-CV, 2020 WL 1173702 (Tex.App.-Beaumont Mar 12, 2020).

- Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging a contempt order, court set aside the trial court's order of contempt, discharged Ms. Nikki H. from custody

The County Court of Law #3 in Montgomery County, Texas found Nikki H. in contempt of court for violating the geographical restriction in her SAPCR order after she moved her teen-aged son to Texas A&M University and ordered she be confined in jail for 130 days. Counsel filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus alleging the SAPCR's terms were too ambiguous to be enforceable by contempt. Within hours of filing the writ, the court of appeals issued bond for Ms. Nikki H. to be released from jail. Then, the court agreed with counsel's argument and granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus.


In the Matter of the Marriage of Nathanson, No. 07-19-00386-CV, 2019 WL 6205519 (Tex.App.-Amarillo Nov. 20, 2019).

- Filed Motion to Dismiss Appeal, court of appeals dismissed appeal for want of jurisdiction

Appellant David Nathanson attempted to appeal a final decree of divorce dissolving his marriage to Carrie Nathanson. Counsel for Ms. Nathonson was approached to defend the appeal, and she immediately filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction because Appellant filed his notice of appeal untimely. The court of appeals agreed and dismissed the appeal.

Client Reviews
★★★★★
“Susan has worked tirelessly for years filing appeals on my behalf. Finally her efforts and persistence has paid off. After serving 11 and 1/2 years, I was released from Federal Prison and have been able to return to my family and help once again with raising my children [now age 16]. My family and I owe a debt of gratitude which we will never be able to repay. The love we feel for Susan is immeasurable.” Joe R.
★★★★★
“Our case was complicated and time critical. Susan took charge of the entire process, keeping us updated with texts, phone calls and emails. She worked through a Holiday weekend to make certain our case got the attention and success required to bring our loved one home. It is also very important to know that she has sophisticated research tools, which are IMPERATIVE when you have to navigate through the Appeals process.” Jack H.
★★★★★
“Susan is a thoroughly dedicated professional that has a unique empathy for cases that reveal the misapplication of justice that so often affects those with limited resources. Through her tireless efforts, one of my best friends had six years reduced from his sentence. The family and I will be forever grateful to Susan.” James P.