Alanis v. Lozano et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 7:25-cv-00443 Document56~ Filed 05/28/26 in TXSD Page1of4
United States District Court

Southem District of Texas

ENTERED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT May 28, 2026
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

MCALLEN DIVISION
ANGEL ADALBERTO ALANIS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:25-CV-443

ANTHONY LOZANO, et al.,

Lr LP LP Lr Lr Ln Ln

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Angel Adalberto Alanis, Jr., proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Docket No. 2.) In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights by arresting him without probable cause and
for false imprisonment. (/d. at 3, 8.) Pending before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss (Docket No. 24), Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Out-of-Time Response (Docket
No. 47), and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Docket No. 51). On
May 27, 2026, the undersigned held a motion hearing, at which time the parties argued the
pending motions.

As explained below, after review of the pending motions, applicable law, and other
relevant pleadings, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an
amended complaint (Docket No. 51) be granted. As such, both Defendants’ motion to dismiss
(Docket No. 24) and Plaintiff's related motion for leave to file a response (Docket No. 47)
should be denied without prejudice as moot.

I. ANALYSIS

As noted, on September 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed this action alleging a violation of his

civil rights, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has attempted to amend his pleading several

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 7:25-cv-00443 Document56~ Filed 05/28/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

times. (See Docket Nos. 7, 13, 51.) Plaintiff's most recent amended pleading was filed on
March 9, 2026. (Docket No. 51-1.) In moving for leave to amend, Plaintiff's argues that leave

99 66.

should be granted because there is “no undue delay,” “no bad faith or dilatory motive,” “no
undue prejudice to defendants,” and because “amendment is not futile.” (Docket No. 51, at 3.)
In addition, at the motion hearing on May 27, 2026, Plaintiff explained that this amended
pleading should clear up any deficiencies that remain, and he also asserted that he does not
anticipate filing any further amended pleadings. Defendants have not filed a response to
Plaintiff's most recent attempt to amend.

Here, the undersigned begins with Plaintiff's motion for leave to file amended complaint
(Docket No. 51) “because its resolution controls the resolution of the other pending motions.”
Betts v. United States, No. 1:18-cv-252, 2019 WL 13199579, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 17, 2019).
Notably, Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend pleadings was filed without a scheduling order in
place. Stated another way, it was not “filed after the deadline for motions to amend pleadings”
had passed. Jd. As such, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) still controls. Jd.; see Fahim v.
Marriott Hotel Servs., Inc., 551 F.3d 344, 348 (Sth Cir. Dec. 8, 2008) (“Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 16(b) governs amendment of pleadings after a scheduling order’s deadline to amend
has expired.”). The Court in Betts explained it in the following way:

“[L]eave to amend under Rule 15(a) is to be freely given [; however, | that
generous standard is tempered by the necessary power of a district court to
manage a case.” Priester v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 708 F.3d 667, 678 (5th
Cir. 2013) (quoting Schiller v. Physicians Res. Grp. Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 566 (Sth
Cir. 2003)). In determining whether to grant leave to amend under Rule 15(a),

“the court may consider factors such as ‘undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive

on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments

previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of the

allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of the amendment.’” Leal v. McHugh,
731 F.3d 405, 417 (Sth Cir. 2013) (alteration in original) (citations omitted).

Case 7:25-cv-00443 Document56~ Filed 05/28/26 in TXSD Page 3of4

Betts, 2019 WL 13199579, at *2. Here, the Court finds that under the circumstances, Plaintiff's
motion for leave to amend should be “freely given.”

To begin with, this case is still in the early stages of litigation. As noted, there is no
scheduling order yet, and as such, the deadline to amend pleadings has not passed. In addition,
as Plaintiff explains, his most recent amended pleading incorporates recent developments in his
underlying criminal proceedings. (See Docket No. 51, at 2.) Finally, because Defendants will
have ample opportunity to respond to the amended pleading, and also to file an amended
dispositive motion if they choose, the undersigned finds that there is no prejudice at this time.

Related to Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend, are Defendant’s motion to dismiss
(Docket No. 24) and Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an out of time response to the dispositive
motion (Docket No. 47). Because the undersigned is recommending that Plaintiff's motion for
leave to amend his pleading (Docket No. 51) be granted, both of the other two motions would
now be moot. As such, it is further recommended that those motions be denied without
prejudice.

Il. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (Docket No. 51) be GRANTED. As such, it is
further recommended that both Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 24) and Plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to File an Out-of-Time Response (Docket No. 47) be DENIED without
prejudice as moot. Finally, it is recommended that Defendants—if they wish—be given an
additional 30 days to file an amended dispositive motion, which should be tailored to Plaintiff's

amended complaint (Docket No. 51-1). Consistent with this, Plaintiff should be allowed to file a

Case 7:25-cv-00443 Document56~ Filed 05/28/26 in TXSD Page 4of4

response to any future dispositive motion, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

The Clerk shall send copies of this Report and Recommendation to the parties, who have
fourteen (14) days after receipt thereof to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Failure to file timely written objections shall bar an
aggrieved party from receiving a de novo review by the District Court on an issue covered in this
Report and, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to
proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court.

SO ORDERED, the 28th of May, 2026 at McAllen, Texas.

NA,

NADIAS. MEDRANO
United States strate Judge