Reyes Medrano v. Andrade

DA YID ABISAI
REYES-MEDRANO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JOSE ANDRADE ,
Defendant.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION
§
§
§
§
§ 	CIV. NO. 7:25-cv-00450
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, David Abisai Reyes-Medrano, proceeding pro s e, initiated this action by filing
Plaintiff's Complaint on September 15 , 2025 , against Defendant Jose Andrade.1 (See Dkt. No. 2).
Plaintiff alleges various infractions, including unlawful seizure and use of force in violation of the
Fourth Amendment, denial of due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and failure
to accommodate in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 	(Id. at 2). 	This case was
subsequently referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for memorandum and recommendation
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and LR 72.
After careful review of the record and relevant law, the undersigned recommends Plaintiff's
Complaint be DISMISSED as outlined within this Memorandum.
1 Plaintiff initially filed App li cation to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on June 23 , 2025. 	(S ee Medrano v.
A ndrade, Case 	o. 7:25-mc-00131 , 0kt. 	o. 1). 	However, Plaintiff's Application was granted on
September 15 , 2025 , and was subsequently docketed as a civi l matter in this cause number. (See 0kt . No .
2).
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 06, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 7:25-cv-00450 Document 6 Filed 03/06/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 5

I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on September 15 , 2025. 2 (See Dkt. No. 2). Therein, Plaintiff
claims Defendant Jose Andrade engaged in acts of excessive force, false arrest, and involuntary
detention of Plaintiff, despite Plaintiff's status as a disabled citizen. 	(Id. at 1). 	Plaintiff further
alleges that despite medical documentation and visible impairment, "Defendant failed to provide
reasonable accommodations, subjected Plaintiff to injury, and contributed to long-term trauma and
visual damage. " 	(Id. at 1-2). As such, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of
$20,000,000.00 for physical pain, emotional suffering, visual impairment, and deprivation of civil
rights. (Id. at 2).
II. 	APPLICABLE LAW/ANALYSIS
A. 	Legal Standard
1. 	28 U.S.C. § 1915
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l), the Court must screen any complaint proceeding in
forma pauperis seeking relief against "a government entity, officer, or employee and dismiss the
complaint if the court determines it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted." Pacheco-Morales v. Belt, SA-23-CV-00417-JKP, 2023 WL 9105552, at *3 (W.D.
Tex. Aug. 3, 2023); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring dismissal of a case filed IFP
where it is determined the action is frivo lous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted.).
2 Petitioner 's pro se petition is entitled to a more liberal construction than those drafted by practicing
attorneys. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S . 519, 520 (1972); see also He rnandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420,
426-27 (5th Cir. 2011) ("It is the s ub stance of the relief sought by a pro se pleading, not the label that the
petitioner has attached to it, that determines the true nature and operative effect of a [filing]."). Thus, the
Court reviews Plaintiff's filings in a more forgiving light.
2
Case 7:25-cv-00450 Document 6 Filed 03/06/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 5

An action is considered frivolous where "there is no arguable legal or factual basis for the
claim." Id. (citing Ne itzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989)). "A complaint lacks an arguable
basis in law if it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, such as if the complaint alleges
the violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist." 	Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716,
718 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Davis v. Scott, 157 F.3d 1003, 1005 (5th Cir. 1998)). An action may
be considered factually fri volous "where the facts alleged are 'fantastic or delusional scenarios' or
the legal theory upon which a complaint relies is 'indisputably meritless. "' 	Eason v. Thaler, 14
F.3d 8, 9 n.5 (5th Cir. 1994) (citing Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327-28).
"An action may be di smissed as malicious or frivolous if it duplicates claims raised by the
same plaintiff in previous or pending litigation." Bagby v. Karriker, 555 F. App ' x 405, 406 (5th
Cir. 2014) (citing Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 849-50 (5th Cir. 1989); Pittman v. Moore , 980
F.2d 994, 994-95 (5th Cir. 1993)) (unpublished); see Stamps v. University ofTex. at Aus. , No. 1:22-
cv-00054-LY-SH, 2022 WL 790353 , at *2 (W.D. Tex . Feb. 22, 2022) (collecting cases dismissing
duplicative claims as frivolous) , report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 22328996 (W.D.
Tex. Mar. 21 , 2022); Shelby v. Kar , 	o. 3:19-CV-1556-L-BH, 2022 WL 2161612, at *2 (N.D. Tex.
May 27, 2022) (same), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 2159275 (N.D. Tex. June
15 , 2022); Hamilton v. Office of Inspector General, No. 3 :23 -CV-1569-G-BH, 2023 WL 5058058,
at *2 (N.D. Tex. July 14 , 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2023 WL 5058843 (N.D.
Tex. Aug. 8, 2023); Reyes v. City ofAu stin, Inc. , No. 1:22-CV-00 02 -LY-SH, 2022 WL 1192778, at
*2 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 11 , 2022 ), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 1192787 (W.D. Tex.
Apr. 13 , 2022).
3
Case 7:25-cv-00450 Document 6 Filed 03/06/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 5

B. 	Plaintiff's Claims
Plaintiff brings claims against Defendant Jose Andrade, focusing on alleged acts of
wrongful detention and excessive force. 	(See Dkt. No. 2 at 1-2). 	Plaintiff's claims appear to be
brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Id. at 2). This lawsuit
was filed on September 15 , 2025. (See Dkt. No. 2).
However, currently pending in this Court is a nearly identical lawsuit filed by Plaintiff in
Reyes-Medrano v. Garza, et al, Case No. 7:25-cv-00362 (S.D. Tex. July 21 , 2025). In that case,
Plaintiff similarly lists Jose Andrade as a defendant. (See Reyes-Medrano v. Garza, et al, Case No.
7:25-cv-00362, Dkt. 	o. 2). 	In that case, Plaintiff also alleges that, between 2011 and 2025,
Defendant 	Andrade 	subjected 	Plaintiff to 	excessive 	force, 	false 	arrest, 	and 	involuntary
hospitalization. 	(See Reyes-Medrano v. Garza, et al, Case No. 7:25-cv-00362, Dkt. No. 6 at 2).
Similarly, Plaintiff seeks recovery against Defendant Andrade pursuant to 42 U.S .C. § 1983 and
the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Id. at 1). Plaintiff filed that lawsuit on July 21 , 2025. (See
Reyes-Medrano v. Garza, et al, Case No. 7:25-cv-00362, Dkt. 	o. 2). 	On March 3, 2026, this
Court fi led a Memorandum and Recommendation to the District Court, recommending dismissal
of Plaintiff's Complaint. (S ee Reyes-Medrano v. Garza, et al, Case No. 7:25-cv-00362, Dkt. No.
33).
With the same Parties, facts, and legal claims, it appears the present case is duplicative of
another pending lawsuit. 	Thus, Plaintiff's Complaint is subject to dismissal under § 1915 as
frivolous, as the Court must "insure that the plaintiff obtains one bite at the litigation apple- 	but
not more." Pittman, 980 F.2d at 995.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed.
4
Case 7:25-cv-00450 Document 6 Filed 03/06/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 5

III. 	CONCLUSION
Recommended Disposition
After careful review of the filings and re levant case law, and for reasons outlined above, it
is recommended that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. 	o. 2) be DISMISSED as frivolous. It is further
recommended that the matter be closed.
Notice to the Parties
Within 14 days after being served a copy of this report, a party may serve and file specific,
written objections to the proposed recommendations. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b ). The district judge to whom this case is assigned shall make a de no vo determination upon
the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge's disposition to
which specific written objection has been made. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify
the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained
in this report within 14 days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from de novo review by the
District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations and from appellate review of factual
findings accepted or adopted by the District Court, except on grounds of plain error or manifest
injustice. 	See Douglas v. United Serv. Auto Ass 'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en
bane), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l).
The Clerk shall also provide a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and Couns el for Defendants.
DONE at McAllen, Texas, this 6th day of ~
Juan F. Alanis
United States Magistrate Judge
5
Case 7:25-cv-00450 Document 6 Filed 03/06/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 5