Harris v. The City of Round Rock Police Department et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
Qu’ Shun Harris,
Plaintiff
v.
The City of Round Rock Police
Department, Grayson Beck Dzialo,
Dillon Joseph Rizzo, Timothy John
Juhlke, Debbie Bruce Juhlke, Jonathan
Lamont Bryan, Shawn Dick, and Jo
Poenitzsch,
Defendants
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
No. 1:25-cv-01870-ADA-SH
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TO: THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court are Plaintiff Qu’ Shun Harris’ Complaint (Dkt. 1), Motion to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, (Dkt. 2), and Application for Permission to File
Electronically (Dkt. 3), all filed November 19, 2025.1
I. Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Harris seeks leave under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) to file his Complaint without having to prepay
the filing fee or costs. Dkt. 2. Under § 1915(a)(1), a court may permit a plaintiff to file an action
“without prepayment of fees or security therefor” if he shows by affidavit that he cannot pay such
fees or security. Section 1915(a) “is intended to provide access to federal courts for plaintiffs who
lack the financial resources to pay . . . statutory filing costs.” Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140
1 The District Court referred to this Magistrate Judge all non-dispositive pretrial matters for disposition and
all case-dispositive motions for findings and recommendations, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 72, Rule 1 of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas, and Judge Alan D Albright’s Standing Order on referrals to United States
Magistrate Judges. Dkt. 4.
Case 1:25-cv-01870-ADA Document 5 Filed 12/29/25 Page 1 of 5

2
(5th Cir. 1988). In making an in forma pauperis determination, a court should consider whether
an applicant may pay the filing fee without suffering undue financial hardship. Id.
After reviewing his application, the Court finds that Harris cannot pay the filing fee without
experiencing undue financial hardship. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Harris in forma pauperis
status and ORDERS his Complaint to be filed without pre-payment of fees or costs. This in forma
pauperis status is granted subject to a later determination that the action should be dismissed if the
allegation of poverty is untrue or if, under § 1915(e)(2), the action is found to be frivolous or
malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages against
an immune defendant. The Court also may impose costs of court against Harris at the conclusion
of this lawsuit, as in other cases. Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 621 (5th Cir. 1994).
II. Frivolousness Review Under Section 1915(e)(2)
Because Harris has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required by
standing order to review his complaint under § 1915(e)(2). A district court shall dismiss a
complaint filed in forma pauperis if it determines that the action is (1) frivolous or malicious,
(2) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A complaint is frivolous
when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325
(1989). A complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted when the plaintiff does
not plead enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
The Court liberally construes the pleadings of litigants who, like Harris, proceed pro se.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). While pro se complaints are held to “less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972),
Case 1:25-cv-01870-ADA Document 5 Filed 12/29/25 Page 2 of 5

3
a plaintiff’s pro se status offers “no impenetrable shield, for one acting pro se has no license to
harass others, clog the judicial machinery with meritless litigation and abuse already overloaded
court dockets.” Farguson v. MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986).
Harris was the defendant in a criminal proceeding in Williamson County, Texas for assault
causing bodily injury. State v. Harris, No. 23-01379-5 (Williamson Co. Ct. at Law No. 5, May 23,
2024). He brings civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Round Rock Police
Department, Round Rock police officers Grayson Dzialo and Dillion Rizzo, three civilians who
made incident reports to police, and attorneys Shawn Dick and Jo Poenitzsch. Dkt. 1 at 2-4. Harris
alleges that he was unlawfully searched, arrested, and detained and maliciously prosecuted, and
that the defendants conspired to deprive him of his constitutional rights. Id. at 6-7. He alleges that
the Round Rock Police department is liable under the Monell doctrine and also brings a common
law claim for intentional infliction of psychological distress by the prosecution. Id. at 7-8.
Harris’ claims arise from a state criminal proceeding and are subject to the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. Rooker v. Fidelity Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman,
460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983). Under that doctrine, federal district courts lack jurisdiction to entertain
collateral attacks on state court judgments.
Constitutional questions arising in state proceedings are to be
resolved by the state courts. If a state trial court errs the judgment is
not void, it is to be reviewed and corrected by the appropriate state
appellate court. Thereafter, recourse at the federal level is limited
solely to an application for a writ of certiorari to the United States
Supreme Court.
Oliver v. Tibbe, No. 1:25-CV-00266-RP-SH, 2025 WL 1087074, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2025),
R. & R. adopted, 2025 WL 1081365 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 10, 2025) (quoting Liedtke v. State Bar of
Tex., 18 F.3d 315, 317 (5th Cir. 1994)). This Court lacks jurisdiction to review Harris’ collateral
attack on a state court judgment. Id. (citing Hill v. Washburne, 953 F.3d 296, 306 (5th Cir. 2020)).
Case 1:25-cv-01870-ADA Document 5 Filed 12/29/25 Page 3 of 5

4
Invocation of the U.S. Constitution does not save Harris’ suit from dismissal under the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine. District courts lack original jurisdiction when a civil rights suit is “inextricably
intertwined” with a state court judgment such that the suit essentially is an attack on that judgment.
Id. (citing Liedtke, 18 F.3d at 317 n.11 (collecting cases)). Whether Harris was deprived of any
rights depends solely on legal issues already decided by the state courts. Because this Court would
have to contradict state court judgments to find in his favor, his lawsuit is inextricably intertwined
with those judgments and the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear it. Id. (citing Phinizy v. State of Ala.,
847 F.2d 282, 282 (5th Cir. 1988)).
This Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court dismiss this suit dismissed under
§ 1915(e)(2) because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars Harris’ claims.
III. Application for Permission to File Electronically
Harris also asks the Court to approve his request to become an electronic filing user. Because
Harris states that he has regular access to all the technical requirements necessary to e-file
successfully, the Court GRANTS his Application for Permission to File Electronically (Dkt. 3).
IV. Order and Recommendation
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Harris’ Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 2) and
Application for Permission to File Electronically (Dkt. 3).
This Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS with prejudice
Harris’ claims as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
The Court FURTHER ORDERS that the Clerk remove this case from this Magistrate Judge’s
docket and return it to the docket of the Honorable Alan D Albright.
Case 1:25-cv-01870-ADA Document 5 Filed 12/29/25 Page 4 of 5

5
V. Warnings
The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing objections
must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are being made.
The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. U.S.
Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). A party’s failure to file written objections to
the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days
after the party is served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo review by the
District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations in the Report and, except on grounds
of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings
and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29
(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
SIGNED on December 29, 2025.
SUSAN HIGHTOWER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01870-ADA Document 5 Filed 12/29/25 Page 5 of 5