Salinas et al v. Wallek et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
ROBERTO J SALINAS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-CV-00045
L WALLEK, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiffs Roberto J. Salinas and Carol L. Salinas, appearing pro se and in forma
pauperis, have filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants
Sargent L. Wallek, the Duval County Sheriff’s Department, and Duval County, Texas.
(D.E. 1). On May 13, 2025, in order to conduct the necessary screening pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the undersigned ordered Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint
clarifying the basis of their claims and the relief sought. (D.E. 9). Over the ensuing six
months, Plaintiffs made several filings related to their complaint and claims, but they have
failed to file any amended complaint that complies with the undersigned’s orders
explaining what must be included. (See D.E.s 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23).
Because Plaintiffs have failed to comply with court orders and for the reasons
discussed further below, it is recommended that Plaintiffs’ complaint be DISMISSED
without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 23, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 2:25-cv-00045 Document 27 Filed 12/23/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 8

2
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiffs filed their complaint on February 12, 2025. (D.E. 1). Liberally construed,
Plaintiffs alleged that they initially contacted the Duval County Sheriff’s Office after their
property was damaged by a construction company working on a neighbor’s property. (Id.
at 4-5). However, the officers who arrived, and particularly Sargeant Wallek, would not
listen to Plaintiffs, did not pursue any action against the construction company or neighbor,
and instead threatened Roberto Salinas with arrest. (Id. at 5). Several weeks later,
Plaintiffs again called the Sheriff’s Department after being threatened by their neighbor.
(Id. at 6). Several officers responded, including Sergeant Wallek, who entered Plaintiffs’
property without consent. (Id.). Sergeant Wallek ordered another officer to arrest Roberto
Salinas, and he was charged with crimes for both incidents despite having committed no
crimes and being the victim in both cases. (Id. at 6-7). As a result of this, Plaintiffs suffered
mental anguish. (Id. at 8). They seek $2.5 million in damages. (Id. at 9). The complaint
indicates that Plaintiffs are suing Sergeant Wallek in his official capacity. (Id. at 2).
On May 13, 2025, the undersigned ordered that Plaintiffs file an amended complaint
so the Court could conduct the necessary screening under § 1915(e)(2)(B). (D.E. 9). The
order briefly explained the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8,
and specifically instructed Plaintiffs that the amended complaint must include, at least, the
following: “(1) the names of all defendants and, for individual defendants, whether they
are being sued in their individual capacity, official capacity, or both; (2) the specific federal
statutory or constitutional right(s) that each defendant violated and how each defendant
Case 2:25-cv-00045 Document 27 Filed 12/23/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 8

3
violated those rights; (3) a brief statement of the facts of the case showing how each
defendant was involved; (4) the injuries suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of the rights
violations; and (5) the relief sought.” (Id. at 2-3). The amended complaint was due by
June 3, 2025. (Id. at 2).
On May 21, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion for Leave to File Supplement [to]
Complaint,” in which they sought to add Captain Matilda Almanza as a defendant. (D.E.
11). On June 2, 2025, the undersigned granted this motion to the extent Plaintiffs sought
to include their new claims in an amended complaint. (D.E. 12). The undersigned further
instructed Plaintiffs that, if they sought to pursue these claims, they should be included in
the previously ordered amended complaint. The deadline to file the amended complaint
was extended to June 10, 2025. (Id.).
On June 13, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a purported response to the order for an amended
complaint. (D.E. 15). In this filing, Plaintiffs named Duval County, Wallek, and Almanza
as defendants, but included far less detailed factual allegations than in their original
complaint that were focused almost exclusively on Almanza. (Id. at 1-4).
On July 28, 2025, before the undersigned took any action regarding the June 13
filing, Plaintiffs filed a “Motion for Leave to File Second Amended [Complaint].” (D.E.
16). Liberally construed, Plaintiffs sought to additional factual allegations and more
defendants. (See generally id.).
On July 30, 2025, the undersigned denied this motion to the extent Plaintiffs sought
to have that filing itself docketed as a second amended complaint, but granted it to the
Case 2:25-cv-00045 Document 27 Filed 12/23/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 8

4
extent plaintiffs sought to file a second amended complaint. (D.E. 17 at 2). As in the May
13 order for an amended complaint, the undersigned provided specific instructions to
Plaintiffs to improve the clarity of their complaint and aid in the Court’s necessary
§ 1915(e)(2)(B) screening. (Id. at 2-3). Specifically, the order noted that the amended
complaint must meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8 and must include, at least, the
following: “(1) the names of ALL defendants and, for individual defendants, whether they
are being sued in their individual capacity, official capacity, or both; (2) the specific federal
statutory or constitutional right(s) that each defendant violated and how each defendant
violated those rights; (3) a brief statement of the facts of the case showing how each
defendant was involved; (4) the injuries suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of the rights
violations; and (5) the relief sought.” (Id. at 3) (emphasis in original). The order further
clarified that the “second amended complaint must be a comprehensive complaint
including ALL factual allegations, claims, and defendants they intend to pursue in this
case” and that it would supersede all previous complaints in this case. The second amended
complaint was due by August 29, 2025. (Id.).
On September 29, 2025, the undersigned issued an order to show cause because
Plaintiffs had not filed a second amended complaint. (D.E. 18). The order stated that
Plaintiffs could comply by filing a proper second amended complaint and again outlined
what a proper complaint must include. (Id. at 2-3). The order warned Plaintiffs that failure
to timely comply with the order would result in a recommendation to dismiss the case for
Case 2:25-cv-00045 Document 27 Filed 12/23/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 8

5
want of prosecution. (Id. at 4). Plaintiffs’ response was due by October 20, 2025. (Id. at
2).
On October 9, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a response to the order to show cause. (D.E.
23). In the response, Plaintiffs argued that their complaint should not be dismissed
regarding Wallek because it contained sufficient factual detail to state claims against him
under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. (Id. at 2-11). In an attached
document, Plaintiffs discussed the factual background of their claims against Almanza and
argued that these claims should not be dismissed because they have alleged sufficient
factual detail to state claims against her under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth
Amendments. (D.E. 23-1 at 1-6).
II. DISCUSSION
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), on motion by a defendant, a court may
dismiss an action for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with the rules or a court order.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). “The district court also has the inherent authority to dismiss an action
sua sponte, without motion by a defendant.” Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (5th
Cir. 1997). “If the dismissal is with prejudice, the district court must first determine that
the failure to comply was the result of purposeful delay or contumaciousness, and the
record must reflect that the district court employed lesser sanctions before dismissing the
action.” Shafer v. Rutledge, No. 2:21-CV-00040, 2021 WL 11549944, at *1 (S.D. Tex.
Apr. 22, 2021).
Case 2:25-cv-00045 Document 27 Filed 12/23/25 in TXSD Page 5 of 8

6
Here, it is recommended that Plaintiffs’ complaint be dismissed without prejudice
under Rule 41(b) for failure to follow a court order. Beginning with the May 13 order and
continuing through the June 2, July 30, and September 29 orders, the undersigned ordered
Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint and provided specific instructions on what details
needed to be included. (D.E.s 9, 12, 16, 18). In the ensuing months, Plaintiffs have
repeatedly sought to alter their factual allegations or add defendants, but they have not filed
any comprehensive amended complaint that is compliant with the requirements of the
court’s orders. Their most recent filing, the response to the order to show cause, includes
the most detailed factual allegations yet, but is formatted as a response to a motion to
dismiss rather than as an amended complaint, and still addresses the claims against Wallek
and Almanza in two separate documents. (D.E.s 23, 23-1). It is not compliant with several
of the requirements in the court orders, including that the amended complaint be titled
“Second Amended Complaint,” include a brief statement of the facts showing how each
defendant was involved, and be contained in a single, comprehensive complaint.
A dismissal without prejudice is an appropriate sanction in this case given Plaintiffs’
repeated failure to follow clear instructions on the need to file a second amended complaint
and on what to include in such a filing. Plaintiffs have been given multiple opportunities
to comply with the orders to file an amended complaint, but they have failed to do so.
Although Plaintiffs are pro se and are entitled to liberal construction of their filings, they
are nonetheless required to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and court orders.
Moreover, Plaintiff Roberto Salinas is not a stranger to federal court and is familiar with
Case 2:25-cv-00045 Document 27 Filed 12/23/25 in TXSD Page 6 of 8

7
the pleading requirements, having represented himself in several other civil cases that
continued beyond the § 1915(e)(2)(B) screening phase. (See S.D. Tex. Case Nos. 2:23-cv-
160, 2:24-cv-168, 2:25-cv-285).
A dismissal with prejudice would not be appropriate, however, as there is no
evidence that Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the orders was due to purposeful delay or
contumaciousness. Shafer, 2021 WL 11549944 at *1. Importantly, it also does not appear
that a dismissal would result in Plaintiffs being barred from pursuing their claims by the
statute of limitations. Based on the allegations throughout Plaintiffs’ various filings in this
case, the events giving rise to their claims began in October 2024. (See, e.g., D.E. 1 at 4-
6). Because the statute of limitations for claims of a civil rights violation under § 1983 is
two years, a dismissal of this case without prejudice will not prevent them from pursuing
their claims in a new case if they seek to do so. See Heilman v. City of Beaumont, 638 F.
App'x 363, 366 (5th Cir. 2016) (stating that the statute of limitations for § 1983 claims is
based on the general statute of limitations governing personal injuries in the forum state,
the applicable limitations period in Texas is two years, and the limitations period begins to
run when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury underlying the action).
III. RECOMMENDATION
Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiffs’ complaint be DISMISSED without
prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b).
Case 2:25-cv-00045 Document 27 Filed 12/23/25 in TXSD Page 7 of 8

8
Respectfully submitted on December 23, 2025.
____________________________
Julie K. Hampton
United States Magistrate Judge
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 2:25-cv-00045 Document 27 Filed 12/23/25 in TXSD Page 8 of 8