Cruz et al v. City of Rosenberg et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
STEPHANIE NELSON CRUZ
and HANSEL RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiffs,
versus
CITY OF ROSENBERG, et al,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NUMBER
4:25-cv-06097
JUDGE CHARLES ESKRIDGE
ORDER ADOPTING
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiffs Stephanie Nelson Cruz and Hansel
Rodriguez proceed here pro se. Plaintiffs also filed an
application to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt 2.
Cruz brings claims for various violations of her civil
rights under 42 USC §1983, the Fourth Amendment, the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act,
the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Texas Public
Information Act. See Dkt 1 at ¶¶60–62, 64. She also brings
a Texas common law claim for “negligence/negligent
infliction of emotional distress.” Id at ¶63.
Rodriguez brings common law claims for “derivative
emotional distress and financial harm.” Id at ¶65.
The matter was referred for disposition to Magistrate
Judge Yvonne Ho. Dkt 5. She entered a Memorandum and
Recommendation granting the application to proceed in
forma pauperis. Dkt 7 at 18. Judge Ho also recommended
that Cruz’s claim under the Texas Public Information Act
be dismissed without prejudice and that all other claims by
both Plaintiffs be dismissed with prejudice under 28 USC
§1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. Id at 18–19.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 04, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-06097 Document 9 Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
The district court reviews de novo those conclusions of
a magistrate judge to which a party has specifically
objected. See FRCP 72(b)(3) & 28 USC § 636(b)(1)(C); see
also United States v Wilson, 864 F2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir
1989, per curiam). The district court may accept any other
portions to which there’s no objection if satisfied that no
clear error appears on the face of the record. See Guillory v
PPG Industries Inc, 434 F3d 303, 308 (5th Cir 2005), citing
Douglass v United Services Automobile Association, 79 F3d
1415, 1430 (5th Cir 1996, en banc); see also FRCP 72(b)
advisory committee note (1983).
Plaintiffs filed objections. See Dkt 8. They contend that
the Judge Ho erred in (i) finding their claims barred by the
relevant statute of limitations, (ii) recommending
dismissal of the TPIA claim, (iii) treating Rodriguez’s
claims as purely derivative of claims by Cruz, and
(iv) recommending dismissal without leave to amend. See
id at 5–14.
On de novo review and determination, the objections
lack merit. The Magistrate Judge correctly determined
that the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury
claims found in Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code
§16.003 applies to all claims. See Dkt 7 at 10. Further,
tolling isn’t warranted because Cruz “had enough
information” during the relevant incident “to know that
she sustained some type of injury.” Id at 15. As for the TPIA
claim, Plaintiffs assert that this claim is “not asserted as a
free-standing state-law” claim. Dkt 8 at 9. It is unclear
why, then, Plaintiffs object to its dismissal. In any event,
the Magistrate Judge correctly determined that dismissal
of this claim without prejudice is proper. As to Rodriguez’s
claims, they are pleaded as “derivative emotional distress
and financial harm.” Dkt 1 at 12 (emphasis added). His
claims thus rise and fall with those of Cruz. Beyond this,
allowing Plaintiffs leave to amend would be futile given
that the relevant statute of limitations has lapsed for all
claims except the TPIA claim. Dismissal is thus warranted
under 28 USC §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Case 4:25-cv-06097 Document 9 Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
The objections by Plaintiffs to the Memorandum and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED.
Dkt 8.
No clear error otherwise appears upon review and
consideration of the Memorandum and Recommendation,
the record, and the applicable law.
The Memorandum and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the Memorandum and
Order of this Court. Dkt 7.
The claim by Plaintiff Stephanie Nelson Cruz under
the Texas Public Information Act is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
All other claims by Plaintiffs Stephanie Nelson Cruz
and Hansel Rodriguez are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
A final judgment will enter separately.
SO ORDERED.
Signed on _______________, at Houston, Texas.
__________________________
Honorable Charles Eskridge
United States District Judge
May 04, 2026
Case 4:25-cv-06097 Document 9 Filed 05/04/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3