Bell v. Constable Reynosa et al

1 / 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ASHTON LAMAR BELL,
# 439239,
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-3357
CONSTABLE REYNOSA, et al.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER STAYING CASE
Plaintiff Ashton Lamar Bell, a detainee in the Montgomery County Jail, proceeds
pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. After reviewing all of the pleadings
as required by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), the Court concludes that this
case should be STAYED and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED for the reasons that
follow.
I. BACKGROUND
According to the Montgomery County Jail’s public online records, Bell was arrested
on February 10, 2025, and is charged with a drug offense in Case No. 25-02-02124. See
Montgomery County Jail Roster, available at https://jailroster.mctx.org/ (last visited Nov.
20, 2025). The Montgomery County District Clerk’s online records for Case No. 25-02-
02124 reflect that Bell pleaded guilty to the charges against him on October 9, 2025 and
was sentenced to 15 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. See District Clerk
Court Records Inquiry, Montgomery County, available at
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
November 25, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-03357 Document 10 Filed on 11/24/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

2 / 6
http://odyssey.mctx.org/unsecured/default.aspx (last visited Nov. 20, 2025). The records
do not reflect whether Bell waived his right to appeal.
Bell claims in this lawsuit that Constable Reynosa and Constable Loucks, both K9
officers with the Montgomery County Constable, violated his civil rights in connection
with his detention and arrest on February 10, 2025. He alleges that at approximately 11:00
a.m., while he was walking on the shoulder of I-45 in Conroe, Constable Loucks stopped
him and stated that his location and behavior were suspicious; that Bell consented to a body
search which yielded nothing illegal; and that Bell’s parents came to pick him up. He
further states that, at approximately 12 noon, Constable Reynosa pulled over the vehicle in
which Bell and his parents were traveling and stated that Bell’s father had failed to signal
a lane change. He claims that Constable Loucks then took Bell’s bag out of the vehicle
and threw it on the ground, “jerked the dog back” when it failed to alert to the bag, and
ultimately “made [the dog] alert to drugs in [his] bag” (Dkt. 1, at 4-5).
Bell alleges that the two defendants violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment
rights. As relief for his claims, he seeks $500,000 in damages to cover lost wages, student
loan payments, and other expenses (id. at 6).
II. THE PLRA AND PRO SE PLEADINGS
Because the plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis and seeks redress
from a governmental entity, the Court is required by the PLRA to dismiss the complaint at
any time if it determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is
immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). A district
Case 4:25-cv-03357 Document 10 Filed on 11/24/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

3 / 6
court may dismiss a claim as frivolous if it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. Samford
v. Dretke, 562 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law “if it
is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407
(5th Cir. 2013) (cleaned up). It lacks an arguable basis in fact “if, after providing the
plaintiff the opportunity to present additional facts when necessary, the facts alleged are
clearly baseless.” Id. (cleaned up).
A dismissal for failure to state a claim is governed by the same standard as that for
a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Newsome v.
EEOC, 301 F.3d 227, 231 (5th Cir. 2002). Under this standard, the Court “construes the
complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff,” “takes all facts pleaded in the complaint as
true,” and considers whether “with every doubt resolved on [the plaintiff’s] behalf, the
complaint states any valid claim for relief.” Harrington v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.,
563 F.3d 141, 147 (5th Cir. 2009) (cleaned up).
In reviewing the pleadings, the Court is mindful of the fact that the plaintiff proceeds
pro se. Complaints filed by pro se litigants are entitled to liberal construction and,
“however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (cleaned up). Even under
this lenient standard a pro se plaintiff must allege more than “‘labels and conclusions’ or a
‘formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)); see Patrick
v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 681 F.3d 614, 617 (5th Cir. 2012). “Threadbare recitals of the elements
of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556
Case 4:25-cv-03357 Document 10 Filed on 11/24/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

4 / 6
U.S. at 678. Additionally, regardless of how well-pleaded the factual allegations may be,
they must demonstrate that the plaintiff is entitled to relief under a valid legal theory. See
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th
Cir. 2005).
III. DISCUSSION
Bell brings his claims under 42 U.S.C.§ 1983, which provides a vehicle for a claim
against a person acting under color of state law for a constitutional violation. Pratt v.
Harris Cty., Tex., 822 F.3d 174, 180 (5th Cir. 2016). His allegations pertain to his detention
and arrest on February 10, 2025, which is related to Case No. 25-02-02124, the criminal
case in which he recently pleaded guilty.
The Supreme Court has held that a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that
bears a relationship to a conviction or sentence is not cognizable unless the conviction or
sentence has been invalidated. Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). To
recover damages based on allegations of “harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness
would render a conviction or sentence invalid,” a civil rights plaintiff must prove “that the
conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order,
declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determinations, or called into
question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus [under] 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”
Id. at 487. If a judgment in favor of a civil rights plaintiff “would necessarily imply the
invalidity of his conviction or sentence,” then the complaint “must be dismissed unless the
plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated.” Id.
Case 4:25-cv-03357 Document 10 Filed on 11/24/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

5 / 6
Public court records do not reflect that Bell’s conviction or sentence in in Case No.
25-02-02124 has been invalidated or otherwise set aside. To the contrary, he recently
pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 15 years in state prison. As stated above, public online
records do not reflect whether he waived his right to appeal.
Because his allegations in this lawsuit implicate the validity of the criminal charges
against him, Heck precludes Bell’s claims until he can demonstrate that his conviction or
sentence has been invalidated. See Clarke v. Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189-91 (5th Cir. 1998)
(en banc). The Supreme Court has explained that, if a pretrial detainee files civil rights
claims related to rulings that will likely be made in a pending criminal proceeding, the best
practice is for the district court to stay the civil rights case until the pending criminal case
is resolved. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393-94 (2007); see Hopkins v. Ogg, 783 F.
App’x 350, 355 & n.20 (5th Cir. 2019) (citing Mackey v. Dickson, 47 F.3d 744, 746 (5th
Cir. 1995)). The Court therefore will stay and administratively close this case until the
criminal proceedings against Bell in in Case No. 25-02-02124, including any future appeal,
are resolved. If Bell’s recent conviction is not invalidated, Heck will require dismissal of
any claims in this lawsuit that would imply the invalidity of his conviction until the Heck
conditions are met. See Johnson v. McElveen, 101 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir. 1996)
(explaining that claims barred by Heck are “dismissed with prejudice to their being asserted
again until the Heck conditions are met”). If his conviction is invalidated, this lawsuit may
proceed, absent some other bar to suit. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 394.
If Bell seeks to proceed with this suit after the criminal proceedings (including
appeals) have concluded, he is instructed to file a motion to reinstate this case within 30
Case 4:25-cv-03357 Document 10 Filed on 11/24/25 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

6 / 6
days of the state court judgment. Failure to file a timely motion to reinstate could waive
Bell’s opportunity to proceed with this civil action.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above the Court ORDERS that:
1. This civil action is STAYED and ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSED until
the Court enters an order lifting the stay.
2. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED as moot.
3. Within 30 days after judgment is entered in the criminal proceedings against
him, Bell may file a motion to reinstate this case. If Bell fails to a motion to
reinstate within 30 days of the state court judgment, he may waive his
opportunity to proceed with this lawsuit.
The Clerk will provide a copy of this order to the parties.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on , 2025.
_________________________________
GEORGE C. HANKS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
November 24
Case 4:25-cv-03357 Document 10 Filed on 11/24/25 in TXSD Page 6 of 6