Havens v. Aransas County, et al.

1 / 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
CHRISTOPHER DALE HAVENS,
Plaintiff,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-CV-00279
ARANSAS COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS CASE
Plaintiff Christopher Dale Havens, Texas inmate appearing pro se and in forma
pauperis, has filed this prisoner civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. At the
time Plaintiff filed his complaint, he was confined at the Aransas County Detention Center
(“ACDC”) in Rockport, Texas. Plaintiff allegations and claims arise in connection with
his confinement as a pretrial detainee at the ACDC. As reflected by the docket, Plaintiff
is currently confined at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Correctional Institutions
Division’s (“TDCJ’s”) Connally Unit in Kenedy, Texas.
Plaintiff names the following ACDC officials in his original complaint: (1) Aransas
County; (2) Sheriff Bill Mills; (3) Chief Deputy Michael Brooks; (4) Deputy Chief
Amando Chapa; (5) Lieutenant Hector Martinez; (6) Lieutenant Dugger Miles; (7)
Lieutenant K. David; (8) Sergeant Cody Coolsten; (9) Corporal Vanmetter; (10) Corporal
Manuel Solis; (11) Sergeant Ryan Sanchez; (12) Sergeant Crowe; (13) Corporal Shiksyder;
(14) Corporal Antonio Urhea; (15) Sergeant Thomas Arisola; (16) Guard Appel; (17) Head
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 12, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:24-cv-00279 Document 49 Filed 01/12/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 11

2 / 11
Nurse Pearson; (18) Nurse Amanda Castro; (19) Nurse Isebel Rodriguez; and (20)
Nurse/Guard Sandra Hinojosa. (D.E. 1, pp. 1, 4-5). Plaintiff’s allegations in his original
complaint appeared to reference numerous events occurring during an unspecified period
of time following his transfer back to the ACDC from Kleberg County on or about July 25,
2023. As has been previously pointed out, Plaintiff’s original complaint was set forth in a
stream of consciousness narrative that was unorganized, confusing, and difficult to
decipher.1 (See D.E. 1, pp. 9-18).
On April 1, 2025, the undersigned entered an order directing Plaintiff to file an
amended complaint. (D.E. 28). The January 3 Order identified Plaintiff’s pleading
deficiencies, including but not limited to:
● Failure to state his claims clearly against each defendant;
● Failure to allege sufficient facts to indicate any named defendant is liable or
responsible to Plaintiff;
● Making conclusory allegations not supported by facts;
● Failure to allege that he sustained more than a de minimis injury with respect
to each of his claims.
● Failure to allege a plausible legal theory why a defendant is liable to him or
otherwise named as a defendant; and
● That some of his claims are simply frivolous and/or fail to state a claim for
relief.
1 Plaintiff has filed eleven pro se civil rights cases in this Court in 2024, with many of these cases filed since October
2024. The confusing manner in which Plaintiff pleads his complaint is not only present in this case, but also in many
of his other cases brought in this Court. Plaintiff’s confusing narrative is especially heightened in this action as it was
virtually impossible to glean from his original complaint when the complained-of events actually occurred and which
defendants Plaintiff seeks to sue with respect to each of his numerous claims.
Case 2:24-cv-00279 Document 49 Filed 01/12/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 11

3 / 11
Id. at 2-3. Plaintiff was further cautioned that some of his claims may not have arisen out
of the same factual scenario and could be subject to being severed from this action or
dismissed without prejudice. Id. at 3.
In this case, the April 1 Order directed that Plaintiff’s amended complaint was due
on or before May 1, 2025, and that Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the directives in the
Order may result in the dismissal of this action for want of prosecution. Id. at 3, 5. On
April 22, 2025, the undersigned extended the deadline to June 2, 2025. (D.E. 31). In
granting an extension, the undersigned directed the Clerk to mail Plaintiff a copy of
Plaintiff’s original complaint (D.E. 1) and a form § 1983 complaint. (D.E. 31, p. 3).
On June 27, 2025, because Plaintiff had failed to comply with the Court’s Orders
by filing an Amended Complaint, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within twenty
(20) days why his lawsuit should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. (D.E. 34).
Plaintiff was instructed that he could comply with the Show Cause Order by filing his
Amended Complaint as previously directed by the Court. Id. Plaintiff was further
instructed that his failure to comply with the Show Cause Order would result in the
undersigned issuing a recommendation to the District Court to dismiss this case. Id. at 1-
2.
Plaintiff filed two separate objections to the Show Cause Order (D.E.’s 38 and 40).
District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos overruled the first objections and affirmed the Show
Cause. (D.E. 39). District Judge Ramos struck the second objections as both procedurally
and substantively improper. (D.E. 41).
Case 2:24-cv-00279 Document 49 Filed 01/12/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 11

4 / 11
On September 25, 2025, the undersigned entered an order which provided Plaintiff
one final opportunity to show cause why this lawsuit should not be dismissed for want of
prosecution.2 (D.E. 42). The undersigned instructed Plaintiff that he would comply with
the Show Cause Order by filing his Amended Complaint in accordance with the
instructions and warnings contained in the April 1 Order. Id. at 2. The Court’s instructions,
repeated in the September 25 Order, direct that:
● Plaintiff shall title his amended pleading as “Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint”
with case number 2:24-cv-00279 included on the top of the first page;
● Plaintiff shall mail or deliver his second amended complaint to the United
States Courthouse, Attn: District Clerk, 1133 North Shoreline Blvd., Corpus
Christi, Texas 78401;
● In his amended complaint, for each claim, Plaintiff shall make a short and
plain statement of the claim showing that he is entitled to relief;
● In his amended complaint, for each claim, Plaintiff shall specify the exact or
approximate date (or dates) when each complained of incident occurred;
● In his amended complaint, Plaintiff shall separately list each defendant and
explain in a short, factual statement what each defendant did to violate
Plaintiff’s rights and explain why the person is named as a defendant;
● Plaintiff shall describe his injuries in more detail and shall state the specific
relief he is seeking in this civil action (i.e. money damages, injunctive relief,
or both);
● Plaintiff shall not reference or incorporate by reference his original complaint
filed in this case or any documents already filed in any other case. Plaintiff’s
amended complaint will take the place of the original complaint and will
2 In granting Plaintiff a final opportunity to show cause, the undersigned noted that: (1) Plaintiff had indicated in his
first objections that he never received a copy of his original complaint as requested (D.E. 38, p. 1); and (2) Plaintiff
has been confined at different prisons throughout 2025 but has since settled at the Connally Unit sometime in late
June of this year (D.E. 37). (D.E. 42, p. 2).
Case 2:24-cv-00279 Document 49 Filed 01/12/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 11

5 / 11
become the only operative pleading in this case. When screening this case
and deciding whether Plaintiff’s claims should be retained or dismissed, the
Court will not consider any matter raised in the original complaint or any
other pleading, motion[,] or filing. The Court will only consider claims
raised in the amended complaint. Any defendant not specifically named in
the amended complaint will be considered voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiff.
Id. at 3. Plaintiff again was cautioned in the September 25 Order that some of his claims
may not have arisen out of the same factual scenario and could be subject to being severed
from this action or dismissed without prejudice. Id. at 3.
On October 30, 2025, the Court received Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, in which
he named the following defendants: (1) Sheriff Bill Mills; (2) Chief Deputy Michael
Brooks; (3) Deputy Chief Amando Chapa; (4) Lieutenant Hector Martinez; (5) Lieutenant
Dugger Miles; (6) Lieutenant K. David; (7) Bailiff Margarita (8) Sergeant Cody Coolsten;
(9) Corporal Vanmetter; (10) Corporal Manuel Solis; (11) Sergeant Ryan Sanchez; (12)
Sergeant Crowe; (13) Corporal Shiksyder; (14) Corporal Antonio Urhea; (15) Sergeant
Thomas Arisola; (16) Guard Appel; (17) Head Nurse Pearson; (18) Nurse Amanda Castro;
and (19) Aransas County. (D.E. 46, pp. 5-9). Plaintiff seeks declaratory, injunctive, and
monetary relief. Id. at 11.
Similar to his original complaint, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint also is presented
through a stream of consciousness narrative that is unorganized, confusing, and lacking in
specificity. With respect to each defendant listed, Plaintiff lists numerous claims without
providing a clear factual basis in support of each claim. For example, Plaintiff attempts to
claim that Sheriff Mills violated his rights as follows:
Case 2:24-cv-00279 Document 49 Filed 01/12/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 11

6 / 11
The Sheriff has an obligation to enforce the law, he has an obligation to
investigate misconduct complaints [but] instead has created a policy to which
his failure to correct misconduct amounts to its approval or adoption allowing
its continuation. [H]e orders defendants named here and other officials to
assault [Plaintiff] excessively, deny [his] due process rights, deny medical
care with deliberate indifference, harass, and torture [him]. [Sheriff Mills]
engaged in a conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff while covering up counties [sic]
misconduct with the use of fabricated evidence. Where the Southern district
court heard Crim v. County of Aransas Tx found deputy Chapa guilty of
planting evidence which has predated this suit has allowed clear violations
of law to continue in which still no charges were brought against these
individuals[.] [I]n fact the Sheriff allowed him to maintain such a position[.]
This has allowed him to allow others to fabricate evidence against another
Plaintiff. Chapa was then again indicted for extortion and blackmail which
the County again allowed charges to be dropped is proof of a pattern to
maintain a code of silence. This allows state actors acting under the color of
law to operate without [repercussion] essentially granting absolute
immunity. The greater problem is when mail was allowed to be censored to
the FBI and Tx Rangers. [Sheriff Mills] had discriminated against [Plaintiff]
by targeting [him] for unfair punishment, for filing law suits and grievances,
abuse of process.
(D.E. 46, p. 5). Plaintiff’s recitation of his claims against Sheriff Mills is conclusory by
failing to present specific facts to set forth his claims in any sort of coherent manner as to
comply with both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2)3 and the September 25 Order.
Furthermore, contrary to the instructions in the September 25 Order, Plaintiff fails to
provide any dates as to when the complained-of-events occurred with respect to Sheriff
Mills actions.
3 A proper pleading under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
Case 2:24-cv-00279 Document 49 Filed 01/12/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 11

7 / 11
A review of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint reflects that he attempts to list
numerous claims against all of the defendants named in this action without providing a
clear factual statement of the facts supporting each claim. While trying to identify
instances of alleged excessive force and deliberate indifference to his serious medical
needs, Plaintiff fails to provide any dates as to when these instances occurred—as required
by the September 25 Order. Indeed, other than indicating he was transferred back to the
ACDC on or about July 25, 2023 (D.E. 46, p. 13), Plaintiff provides no dates as when any
of his complained-of instances occurred.
With respect to many of incidents cited in his Amended Complaint claims, Plaintiff
fails to identify the defendant responsible or otherwise provide a sufficient factual basis in
support. For instance, without identifying the jail official or officials responsible, Plaintiff
complains about: (1) the denial of medical treatment for various issues such as a staph
infection; (2) guards hog-tying him and sitting him up on certain occasions; (3) undergoing
torture though constant audio recordings; and (3) the denial of certain hygiene items. (D.E.
46, pp. 13-16).
The undersigned further notes that Plaintiff previously has been cautioned that
claims not arising out of the same factual scenario are subject to being severed from this
action or dismissed without prejudice. See D.E. 28, p. 3; D.E. 42, p. 4; Fed. R. Civ. P.
18(a)4 and 205; 6A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal
4 Plaintiff Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only allows a plaintiff to join “either as independent or
as alternate claims, as many claims, legal, equitable, or maritime, as the party has against an opposing party.”
5 Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in turn, only allows the joinder of several parties if the claims arose
out of a single transaction (or series of transactions or occurrences) and contain a question of fact or law common to
Case 2:24-cv-00279 Document 49 Filed 01/12/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 11

8 / 11
Practice and Procedure § 1583 (2d ed. 1990) (noting that, under Rules 18(a) and 20, if the
claims arise out of different transactions and do not involve all defendants, joinder should
not be allowed); Patton v. Jefferson Correctional Center, 136 F.3d 458, 464 (5th Cir. 1998)
(discouraging “creative joinder of actions” by prisoners attempting to circumvent the
Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes provision);
As best as the undersigned can glean from reviewing Plaintiff’s claims in his
Amended Complaint, he seeks to raise a number of unrelated claims against numerous
defendants. These unrelated claims consist of various incidents of excessive force,6
deliberate indifference to his health,7 conspiracy to defraud, discrimination, retaliation, due
process violations, policy violations, fabricating evidence, First Amendment violations
relating to the censure or taking of mail, retaliation, the taking of property, and the denial
of access to courts to both the federal and state courts. (D.E. 46, pp. 5-9; 13-18). In
addition, Plaintiff appears to raise additional unrelated claims challenging the grievance
process, his Aransas County criminal proceeding, and his current incarceration in TDCJ
custody. Id. at 16-18. Plaintiff has presented his claims in such a haphazard fashion as to
all the defendants.
6 Naming numerous defendants, Plaintiff generally alleges he subjected to excessive force as the result of the
application of restraints causing “positional asphyxiation” and the injection of an unknown substance. (D.E. 46, pp.
6-9). Plaintiff does not indicate when the application of this force occurred. Plaintiff later alleges, without specifying
any dates, that he was subjected being hogtied, tortured, and brainwashed. Id. a 14. In still another incident, Plaintiff
alleges that he was hogtied and brought to a transport van which caused him to suffer sharp pricks to his back. Id. at
15. It appears that each incident was a separate event and involved different jail officials.
7 Plaintiff alleges that jail officials acted with deliberate indifference to his health by denying him medical treatment
following the use of excessive force. (D.E. 46, pp. 6-9). However, Plaintiff appears to raise separate deliberate
indifference claims against other jail officials by: (1) denying him care for his staph infection and other medical issues;
(2) denying him a double mat provided under a medical pass; and (3) denying him certain food items and a special
diet. Id. at 13-14.
Case 2:24-cv-00279 Document 49 Filed 01/12/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 11

9 / 11
be virtually impossible to discern any claim central to this lawsuit. In sum, Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint contravenes both Rules 18(a) and 20. See George v. Smith, 507 F.3d
605, 607 (7th Cir. 2007) (“Unrelated claims against different defendants belong in different
suits.”).
Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to dismiss an
action sua sponte for failure to prosecute or for failure to comply with the federal rules or
any court order. Larson v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1030, 1031 (5th Cir. 1998). “This authority
[under Rule 41(b)] flows from the court’s inherent power to control its docket and prevent
undue delays in the disposition of pending cases.” Boudwin v. Graystone Ins. Co., Ltd.,
756 F.2d 399, 401 (5th Cir. 1985) (citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Cao., 370 U.S. 626 (1962)).
The exercise of the power to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute or obey a court order is
committed to the sound discretion of the Court and appellate review is confined solely in
whether the Court’s discretion was abused. Green v. Forney Eng’g Co., 589 F.2d 243,
247-48 (5th Cir. 1979); Lopez v. Aransas Cnty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th
Cir. 1978).
Here, Plaintiff has failed to address the deficiencies identified with respect to his
original complaint. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, much like his original complaint,
references numerous incidents occurring during an unspecified period of time following
his transfer back to the ACDC from Kleberg County on or about July 25, 2023. He does
not clearly identify each defendant responsible for each complained-of incident, fails to set
forth his claims and supporting facts with specificity and clarity, fails to set forth the dates
Case 2:24-cv-00279 Document 49 Filed 01/12/26 in TXSD Page 9 of 11

10 / 11
when each complained-of event happened, and fails to join in this action claims and
defendants arising from one transaction or occurrence or a series of related transactions
and occurrences. Plaintiff has been previously warned in the April 1 and September 25
Orders that this action may be dismissed for failure to comply with court orders. Dismissal
is therefore warranted under these circumstances.
Accordingly, it is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff’s case be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE pursuant to Rule 41(b).
Respectfully submitted on January 12, 2026.
____________________________
Julie K. Hampton
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 2:24-cv-00279 Document 49 Filed 01/12/26 in TXSD Page 10 of 11

11 / 11
NOTICE TO PARTIES
The Clerk will file this Memorandum and Recommendation and transmit a copy to
each party or counsel. Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of
the Memorandum and Recommendation, a party may file with the Clerk and serve on the
United States Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b), 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), General Order No. 2002-13, United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas.
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions,
and recommendation in a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation within
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except upon
grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual
findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court. Douglass v. United Servs.
Auto Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc).
Case 2:24-cv-00279 Document 49 Filed 01/12/26 in TXSD Page 11 of 11