Mosquez v. Conroe, Texas et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
NICHOLAS DAVID MOSQUERA,
TDCJ #02377827,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CONROE, TEXAS, et al. ,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-06382
§
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Nicholas David Mosquera (TDCJ #02377827), a state inmate in the custody of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), filed this pros e civil rights complaint under
42 U.S.C . § 1983 against the City of Conroe, Texas, Montgomery County District Attorney
Brett Ligon, and "Watchguard with Conroe, Texas" Tyson Sutton. Doc. No. 1. He has not
paid the filing fee and presumably seeks to proceed in forma pauperis. 	After reviewing
the pleadings as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court concludes that this case must
be dismissed for the reasons that follow.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Mosquera is currently serving an eighteen-year sentence as the result of a conviction
for evading arrest with a motor vehicle in Montgomery County case number 20-11-14063,
in violation of Texas Penal Code § 3 8.04(6 )(2). 1 See State v. Mosquera , Tr. No. 20-11-
1 See TDCJ Offender Search website, available at https://offender.tdcj .texas.gov/OffenderSearch/offender
1/ 5
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
July 29, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-06382 Document 5 Filed 07/29/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

14063 (3 59th Jud. Dist. Ct., Montgomery County, Tex. filed Nov. 16 , 2020) (sentenced
Jan. 31, 2022). 	He sues the defendants for malicious prosecution for another charge
obtained at the same time, for being a felon in possession of a firearm in Montgomery
County case number 20-11-14062, a charge that was subsequently dismissed without
prejudice. 	State v. Mosquera , Tr. No. 20-11-14062 (3 59th Jud. Dist. Ct., Montgomery
County, Tex. filed Nov. 16, 2020) (dismissed without prejudice Mar. 9, 2022). Mosquera
alleges that defendants arrested, prosecuted, and confined him without authority to do so.
He states that on November 13 , 2020, he was arrested without probable cause for being a
felon in possession. Doc. No. 1 at 4.
Court records indicate that he was also charged with evading arrest with a motor
vehicle in case number 20-11-14063 in connection with that same arrest as explained
above. In fact, this Court previously dismissed Mosquera 's claims regarding his November
13 , 2020 arrest and prosecution regarding case number 20-11-14063 , because Mosquera
has not shown that his conviction for evading arrest with a motor vehicle has been
overturned or called into question on appeal or through a writ of habeas corpus. 	See
Mosquera v. City of Conroe, Tex., Civ. No. H-23-698 (S .D . Tex. 2023). 	For relief in this
case, he seeks compensatory damages of $18 million and the video of the arrest from
Conroe officials. Doc. No. 1 at 4.
Detail.action?s id =07708586 (last visited Jul. 28, 2026).
2 / 5
Case 4:25-cv-06382 Document 5 Filed 07/29/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

II. 	DISCUSSION
Mosquera's Complaint is subject to screening under the Prison Litigation Reform
Act (PLRA), which requires a district court to scrutinize claims in a civil action brought by
a prisoner and dismiss the complaint, in whole or in part, if it " is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;" or "seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
Pleadings filed by pro se litigants must be construed under a less stringent standard
ofreview. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). Under this standard, a court liberally
construes a document filed prose. 	Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing
Estelle v. 	Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 , 106 (1976)). 	However, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). 	A complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to 's tate a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."' Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). 	"A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 678.
Mosquera 's 	claims 	regarding 	his 	November 	13, 	2020 	arrest, 	subsequent
prosecution, and confinement are barred under the Supreme Court's holding in Heck v.
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486- 87 (1994). 	Heck bars any cause of action under§ 1983 ,
regardless of the type of relief sought, that would necessarily imply the invalidity of the
3 15
Case 4:25-cv-06382 Document 5 Filed 07/29/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

plaintiffs conviction or sentence, unless the conviction has previously been invalidated
through proper channels. Id.; Kutzner v. Montgomery County, 303 F.3d 339, 340 (5th Cir.
2002). Thus, before a plaintiff can pursue a claim for damages or injunctive relief arising
from 	allegedly 	unlawful 	actions 	which, 	if proven, 	would 	also 	show 	the 	plaintiffs
conviction or sentence to be invalid, the plaintiff must first show that his conviction or
sentence that resulted from the challenged arrest has been reversed on appeal, expunged by
executive order, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus. Id.
The gravamen ofMosquera's complaint in this case is that he was arrested, without
probable cause, for being a felon in possession. Doc. No. 1 at 4. His claim that there was
no probable cause for his November 13, 2020, arrest is inextricably linked to the legality
of his present sentence and confinement. In Heck, the Supreme Court explained that a civil
rights challenge to an arrest when one of the elements of the underlying conviction (for
example, resisting arrest has as an element resisting a lawful arrest) would not be viable
under section 1983 because success on the civil rights case would necessarily call into
question the conviction for resisting arrest. 	Heck, 512 U.S. at 486 & n.6. 	Similarly,
Mosquera's challenge to his arrest, where he was convicted for evading arrest with a motor
vehicle (which has as an element evading a lawful arrest),2 is barred unless or until he can
show that his conviction that resulted from the challenged arrest has been invalidated. See
id. 	Because Mosquera has not shown that his conviction that resulted from his November
2 See Tex. Penal Code §38.04 ("A person commits an offense ifhe intentionally flees from a person he
knows is a peace officer or federal special investigator attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him.")
4 / 5
Case 4:25-cv-06382 Document 5 Filed 07/29/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

13 , 2020 arrest has been overturned or in validated through proper channels, his present
civil rights claims challenging the lawfulness of that arrest are barred by Heck.
III. 	CONCLUSION AND ORDER
5 I 5
Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS that:
1. 	Nicholas David Mosquera' s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) for failure to state a claim on which relief
may be granted based onHeckv. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
2. 	All pending motions, if any, are DENIED as MOOT.
3. 	This di smissal constitutes a "strike" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915( g).
The Clerk of Court shall send a copy of this dismissal to the Clerk of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston
Division, 515 Rusk Street, Houston, Texas, 77002, Attention: Three-Strikes
List Manager, at the following email: Three_Strikes@txs.uscourts.gov
The Clerk will send a copy of this Order to the parties.
-k--
SIGNED this 	""L ~ 	day of July 2026.
ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-06382 Document 5 Filed 07/29/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5