Reyes Medrano v. Garza

DAYID ABISAI
REYES-MEDRANO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JUAN MANUEL GARZA,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION
§
§
§
§
§ 	CIV. NO. 7:25-cv-00451
§
§
CITY OF PHARR, JOSE ANDRADE,
AND LAURA RENTERIA,
§
§
Defendants. 	§
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, David Abisai Reyes-Medrano, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing
Plaintiff's Federal Complaint on September 15 , 2025 , 1 against Defendants Juan Manuel Garza, the
City of Pharr, Jose Andrade, and Laura Renteria. 2 	(See Dkt. No. 2). 	Plaintiff alleges various
infractions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act. (Id. at 3). This case was subsequently referred to the undersigned
magistrate judge for memorandum and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and LR
72.
1 Plaintiff initially filed Application to Proceed In Forma Pauper is on June 23, 2025. (See Reyes Medrano
v. Garza, Case No. 7:25-mc-00132, Dkt. No. 	I). 	However, Plaintiff's Application was granted on
September 15 , 2025 , and was subsequently docketed as a civil matter in this cause number. (See Dkt. No.
2).
2 Plaintiff's Complaint lists Juan Manuel Garza as the Defendant in the case caption. (See Dkt. No. 2 at 1).
However, Plaintiff later lists as Defendants the City of Pharr, Juan Manuel Garza, Jose Andrade, and Laura
Renteria. (Id. at 3). In an abundance of caution, the Court assumes the latter is correct.
1
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 06, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 7:25-cv-00451 Document 6 Filed 03/06/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

After careful review of the record and relevant law, the undersigned recommends Plaintiff's
Complaint be DISMISSED as outlined within this Memorandum.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on September 15 , 2025. 3 (See Dkt. No. 2). 	Plaintiff claims
he made over twenty (20) documented police reports to the Pharr Police Department between 2020
and 2025 regarding threats, violence, and criminal activity targeting him as a disabled citizen. (Id.
at 1). 	Plaintiff alleges Defendant Garza failed to investigate or follow up on the reports, ignored
warrants, downgraded felony offenses, and failed to protect Plaintiff's rights. (Id. at 1-2). 	This
includes continued harassment and retaliation by officers under Defendant Garza's watch. (Id. at
2).
Plaintiff then alleges that Defendant Laura Renteria, since February 7, 2025, "has neglected
to respond to over a dozen voicemails, follow-up calls, and citizen requests for status updates
regarding 	multiple 	complaints 	of officer 	misconduct[,]" 	including 	the 	allegations 	against
Defendants Garza and Andrade. (Id. at 3). 	Plaintiff argues that Defendant Renteria's failure to
act, communicate, and provide transparency constitutes gross negligence and administrative
retaliation. 	(Id.). 	Additionall y, Plaintiff asserts that, by allowing discriminatory behavior, like
allowing Plaintiff to be referenced as "disabled David Reyes," Defendant Renteria has directly
contributed to ongoing harm. (Id.).
3 Petitioner's pro se petition is entitled to a more liberal construction than those drafted by practicing
attorneys. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); see also Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420,
426-27 (5th Cir. 2011) (" It is the substance of the relief sought by a pro se pleading, not the label that the
petitioner has attached to it, that determines the true nature and operative effect of a [filing]." ). Thus, the
Court reviews Plaintiff's filing s in a more forgiving li ght.
2
Case 7:25-cv-00451 Document 6 Filed 03/06/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks $20,000,000.00 in compensatory damages, injunctive relief
and external oversight, and reassignment of Plaintiff's case to an independent investigator. (Id. at
2).
II. 	APPLICABLE LAW/ANALYSIS
A. 	Legal Standard
1. 	28 U.S.C. § 1915
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l), the Court must screen any complaint proceeding in
forma pauperis seeking relief against "a government entity, officer, or employee and dismiss the
complaint if the court determines it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted." Pacheco-Morales v. Belt, SA-23-CV-00417-JKP, 2023 WL 9105552, at *3 (W.D.
Tex. Aug. 3, 2023); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring dismissal of a case filed IFP
where it is determined the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted.).
An action is considered frivolous where "there is no arguable legal or factual basis for the
claim." Id. (citing Ne itzke v. Williams , 490 U.S . 319, 325 (1989)). "A complaint lacks an arguable
basis in law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, such as if the complaint alleges
the violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist." 	Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716,
718 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003 , 1005 (5th Cir. 1998)). An action may
be considered factuall y frivolous "where the facts alleged are ' fantastic or delusional scenarios' or
the legal theory upon which a complaint relies is ' indisputably meritless. "' 	Eason v. Thaler , 14
F.3d 8, 9 n.5 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28).
"An action may be dismissed as malicious or frivolous if it duplicates claims raised by the
same plaintiff in previous or pending litigation." 	Bagby v. Karriker, 555 F. App ' x 405 , 406 (5th
3
Case 7:25-cv-00451 Document 6 Filed 03/06/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

Cir. 2014) (citing Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 849-50 (5th Cir. 1989); Pittman v. Moore , 980
F.2d 994, 994-95 (5th Cir. 1993)) (unpublished); see Stamps v. University of Tex . at Au s., No. 1:22-
cv-00054-LY-SH, 2022 WL 790353 , at *2 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2022) (collecting cases dismissing
duplicative claims as frivolous), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 22328996 (W.D.
Tex . Mar. 21 , 2022); Shelby v. Kar, No. 3: 19-CV-1556-L-BH, 2022 WL 2161612, at *2 (N.D. Tex.
May 27, 2022) (same), report and recommendation adopte d, 2022 WL 2159275 (N.D. Tex. June
15 , 2022); Hamilton v. Office of In sp ector General, No. 3 :23-CV-1569-G-BH, 2023 WL 5058058,
at *2 (N.D. Tex. July 14 , 2023 ), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 5058843 (N.D.
Tex. Aug. 8, 2023); Reyes v. City ofAustin, Inc. , No. 1:22 -CV-0002-LY-SH, 2022 WL 1192778, at
*2 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 11 , 2022), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 1192787 (W.D. Tex.
Apr. 13 , 2022).
B. 	Plaintiff's Claims
Plaintiff brings claims against Defendants Juan Manuel Garza, Jose Andrade, Laura
Renteria, and the City of Pharr. (S ee 0kt. No. 2). Plaintiff's claims are brought under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
(Id. at 3). This lawsuit was filed on September 15 , 2025. (S ee 0kt. No. 2).
However, currently pending in this Court is a nearly identical lawsuit filed by Plaintiff in
Reyes-Medrano v. Garza, et al, Case No. 7:25-cv-00362 (S.D. Tex. July 21 , 2025). In that case,
Plaintiff similarly lists Juan Manuel Garza, Laura Renteria, Jose Andrade, and the City of Pharr as
defendants. (See Reyes-Medrano v. Garza, et al, Case No. 7:25-cv-00362, 0kt. No. 2 at 2). There,
Plaintiff similarly seeks relief for neglect of more than twenty (20) criminal complaints filed
between 2020 and 2025 , specifically identifying "criminal negligence, failure to investigate,
suppression of felony offenses" by Defendant Garza, "refusal to respond to complaints or provide
4
Case 7:25-cv-00451 Document 6 Filed 03/06/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

updates" by Defendant Renteria, and excessive force , unlawful detention, and mental health abuse
by Defendant Andrade. (Se e Reyes -Medrano v. Garza, et al, Case No. 7:25-cv-00362, Dkt. No. 7
at 2). Likewise, Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 	(S ee Re yes-Medrano v. Garza, et al,
Case No. 7:25-cv-00362, Dkt. No. 2 at 1). Plaintiff filed that lawsuit on July 21 , 2025. (See id.).
On March 3, 2026, this Court filed a Memorandum and Recommendation to the District Court,
recommending dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint. (See Reyes-Medrano v. Garza, et al, Case No.
7:25-cv-00362, Dkt. No. 33).
With the same Parties, facts, and legal claims, it appears the present case is duplicative of
another pending lawsuit. 	Thus, Plaintiff's Complaint is subject to dismissal under § 1915 as
frivolous, as the Court must "insure that the plaintiff obtains one bite at the litigation apple- 	but
not more." Pittman , 980 F.2d at 995.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed.
Ill. 	CONCLUSION
Recommended Disposition
After careful review of the filings and relevant case law, and for reasons outlined above, it
is recommended that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 2) be DISMISSED as frivolous . It is further
recommended that the matter be closed.
Notice to the Parties
Within 14 days after being served a copy of this report, a party may serve and file specific,
written objections to the proposed recommendations. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b ). The district judge to whom this case is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon
the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge's disposition to
5
Case 7:25-cv-00451 Document 6 Filed 03/06/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

which specific written objection has been made. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify
the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained
in this report within 14 days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from de novo review by the
District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations and from appellate review of factual
findings accepted or adopted by the District Court, except on grounds of plain error or manifest
injustice. 	See Douglas v. United Ser v. Auto Ass 'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en
bane), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S .C. § 636(b)(l).
The Clerk shall also provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and Counsel for Defendants.
DONE at McAllen, Texas, this 6~ day of M~ 	------
United States Magistrate Judge
6
Case 7:25-cv-00451 Document 6 Filed 03/06/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 6