Jones v. Madhwani et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
GENERIO TRAVIS JONES, JR., 	§
§
V. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-648-P
§
OFFICER FNU MADHWANI, ET AL., 	§
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY CASE
Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Stay Case or, Alternatively,
to Extend Responsive Pleading Deadline (“Motion to Stay”) [doc. 19], filed February 4, 2026. In
his Amended Complaint [doc. 12], pro se Plaintiff Generio Travis Jones, Jr. (“Jones”) sues
Defendants, all police officers “employed by the Fort Worth Police Department” pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. (Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (“Pl.’s Am. Compl.”) at 6.) Jones alleges that,
on April 4, 2025, Defendants violated Jones’ rights under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution against “unreasonable searches and seizures” when he was “unlawfully stopped,
detained, searched, and arrested without reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or a warrant.” (Pl.’s
Am. Comp. at 4; see also Pl.’s Am. Compl. at 5-7.) Plaintiff also asserts a claim for violation of
his due process clause rights under the Fourteenth Amendment “when officers failed to articulate
a lawful reason for the stop and arrest, denied [his] lawful request for a supervisor, and proceeded
with an arrest absent any legal justification.” (Id. at 4; see also Pl.’s Am. Compl. at 3.)
In their Motion to Stay, Defendants claim that, while not mentioned by Plaintiff in his
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff “is still facing unresolved criminal charges arising from the arrest
about which he complains herein.” (Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Stay Case (“Defs.’ Mot.”)
Case 4:25-cv-00648-P Document 25 Filed 02/18/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID <pageID>

2
at 2.) Defendants “ask that the Court take judicial notice of Tarrant County, Texas, criminal court
records” that show “Plaintiff was indicted for the felony offense of ‘Unlawful Possession of a
Firearm by a Felon’” and “charged by Complaint and Information with the misdemeanor offense
of ‘Resisting Arrest.’” 	(Defs.’ Mot. at 2.) 	Defendants, referencing the case numbers and the
specific state courts where such charges are pending, request that this case be stayed pending the
resolution of Plaintiff’s pending criminal charges. (Id. at 2-4.)
“When a plaintiff files suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on claims that are ‘related to
rulings that will likely be made in a pending . . . criminal trial[ ], it is within the power of the
district court, and in accord with common practice, to stay the civil action until the criminal case .
. . is ended.’” Joiner v. Lewis, No. 23-7144, 2024 WL 3452902, at *1 (E.D. La. July 17, 2024)
(alterations in original) (quoting Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 (2007)). “This principle
follows from the rule that a plaintiff may not bring claims under Section 1983 that would
‘challeng[e] the validity of outstanding criminal judgments,’ unless the plaintiff has proven ‘that
the conviction . . . has already been invalidated.’” Joiner, 2024 WL 3452902, at *1 (alterations in
original) (quoting Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994)).
Based on the foregoing, the Court FINDS and CONCLUDES that a stay for the entire
case is appropriate as Plaintiff’s civil claims against Defendants could necessarily imply the
invalidity of a future criminal conviction. See Mackey v. Dickson, 47 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 1995)
(per curiam) (remanding the case to the district court so that it could stay Plaintiff’s unreasonable
search and seizure claims against police officers “until the pending criminal case has run its
course”); Myles v. Ware, No. 25-0065, 2025 WL 1572327, at *9 (W.D. La. May 1, 2025)
(recommending staying Plaintiff’s claims of unlawful stop/detention, unlawful search, and false
arrest as prevailing on such claims could necessarily imply the invalidity of a future conviction),
Case 4:25-cv-00648-P Document 25 Filed 02/18/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID <pageID>

3
rep. & rec. adopted, 2025 WL 1570982 (W.D. La. June 3, 2026); Woods v. Houston Police Dep’t,
No. H-24-722, 2024 WL 1185125, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2024) (stating that the proper
procedure in a civil case where Plaintiff asserts claims for illegal search, illegal seizure, false
imprisonment, and falsified evidence, “is for the court to stay the civil rights action until the state-
court [criminal] proceedings have concluded”); Moore v. Miss. Gaming Comm’n, No. 1:15-CV-
13-DMB-DAS, 2017 WL 11675688, at *2-3 (N.D. Miss. (July 12, 2017) (staying Plaintiffs’
Section 1983 claims relating to, inter alia, an unreasonable search and seizure until the criminal
prosecutions were resolved so that the Court could determine whether Heck bars Plaintiffs’
claims).
Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay [doc.
19] be GRANTED and the above-styled and numbered cause be STAYED pending resolution of
Plaintiff’s above-described criminal charges.
It is further RECOMMENDED that this case be ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED and
that Plaintiff, if he intends to pursue these claims, be ORDERED to file a motion to lift the stay
within thirty (30) days of the date the criminal proceedings against him conclude.
The Court further RECOMMENDS that Defendants not be required to answer Plaintiff’s
claims against them during the stay nor that Plaintiff be allowed to seek a default judgment or
conduct discovery during the stay.
The Court further RECOMMENDS that the Clerk of the Court be DIRECTED not to
accept any motions or other documents for filing in this case from Plaintiff other than: (1) a motion
to lift the stay and reopen the case; (2) a motion to dismiss the lawsuit voluntarily; or (3) a notice
of change of address.
Case 4:25-cv-00648-P Document 25 Filed 02/18/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID <pageID>

4
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right to serve and file specific
written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge’s
proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after the party has
been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need only make a de
novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings,
conclusions, and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. 	See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1). 	Failure to file, by the date stated above, a specific written objection to a proposed
factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest
injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal conclusions
accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d
1415, 1428–29 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(extending time to file objections to 14 days).
Case 4:25-cv-00648-P Document 25 Filed 02/18/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID <pageID>

5
ORDER
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is hereby ORDERED that each party is granted until March 4,
2026, to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge’s proposed
findings, conclusions, and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed,
and the opposing party chooses to file a response, the response shall be filed within seven (7) days
of the filing date of the objections.
SIGNED February 18, 2026.
_________________________________________
JEFFREY L. CURETON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-00648-P Document 25 Filed 02/18/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID <pageID>