Contreras v. City of McAllen et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION
NORMALINDA CONTRERAS, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Civil Action No. 7:25-CV-00541
§
CITY OF MCALLEN; CHIEF OF POLICE §
VICTOR RODRIGUEZ; SGT. JAVIER §
CAVAZOS; OFFICER PEREZ; OFFICER §
ZAPATA; OFFICER RODRIGUEZ; §
OFFICER O. PUENTE; OFFICER §
DELGADO; OFFICER CASTRO; FLIX §
NORTH AMERICA, INC.; FLIXBUS, §
INC.; and GREYHOUND LINES, INC., §
§
Defendants. §
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are Defendants City of McAllen, Texas (the “City”), Flix North
America, Inc. (“Flix North America”), FlixBus, Inc. (“FlixBus”), Greyhound Lines, Inc.
(“Greyhound”), Officer Perez, Officer Castro, Officer Delgado, Officer Rodriguez, Officer
Puente, Officer Zapata (collectively, the “Officer Defendants”), and Sergeant Cavazos’s,
(collectively, “Defendants”) Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff Normalinda Contreras’s
Complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. (Dkt. Nos. 7, 8, 10, 12). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss as moot.
On November 22, 2025, Contreras filed her Complaint asserting claims under 42
U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Texas Tort
Claims Act, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Texas Human Rights Code,
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 18, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 7:25-cv-00541 Document 32 Filed 05/15/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
as well as assault and battery, negligence, failure to provide medical care/failure to assist,
breach of contract, wrongful ejection by a common carrier, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, and defamation. (Dkt. No. 1). Contreras contends that she was
aggressively ejected from a bus in McAllen, Texas, after allegedly purchasing a
handicapped-accessible ticket to Houston, Texas. (Id. at 2–3). On January 7, 2026, the
City filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. (Dkt. No. 7). On January 13, 2026, Flix
North America, Flixbus, and Greyhound filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. (Dkt.
No. 8). The Officer Defendants and Sergeant Cavazos also filed Motions to Dismiss the
Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 10, 12). Contreras then filed an amended Complaint.1 (Dkt. No.
13).
In the Fifth Circuit, an amended complaint supersedes the original “unless the
amended complaint incorporates the original by reference or explicitly adopts it.”
Velazquez v. United States, 835 F.App’x 733, 736 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam); see also King
v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994) (“An amended complaint supersedes the original
complaint and renders it of no legal effect unless the amended complaint specifically
refers to and adopts or incorporates by reference the earlier pleading.”).
Contreras’s amended Complaint neither incorporates the original Complaint by
reference nor explicitly adopts it. As a result, her original Complaint, (Dkt. No. 1), is “of
1 Contreras is entitled to amend her pleading once as a matter of course no later than 21
days after service of a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a).
Case 7:25-cv-00541 Document 32 Filed 05/15/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
no legal effect.” King, 31 F.3d at 346. Accordingly, the Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss,
(Dkt. Nos. 7, 8, 10, 12), are DENIED without prejudice2 as moot.
It is SO ORDERED.
Signed on May 15, 2026.
___________________________________
DREW B. TIPTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2 The Court acknowledges that some Defendants have filed new Motions to Dismiss, (Dkt.
Nos. 16, 17), after Contreras filed her amended Complaint. These Motions to Dismiss will be
addressed by separate order of the Court.
Case 7:25-cv-00541 Document 32 Filed 05/15/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3