Vallego v. Pasadena PD

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:25-cv-02533 Document 9 _ Filed 05/30/26 in TXSD_ Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

Southem District of Texas
ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT _ Sune 01, 2026
SOUTHERN DISTRICT.OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
HOUSTON DIVISION
JUAN JOSE VALLEJO, §
TDCI 402560843, §
Plaintiff, §
§
VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-CV-02533
§
PASADENA PD, §
§
Defendant. §

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Juan Jose Vallejo (TDCJ #02560843) is a state inmate in custody of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice at the Gunney Unit in Palastine, Texas. Vallejo filed
this civil rights action against the Pasadena Police Department, claiming that his arrest in
November 2024 lacked probable cause and that the vehicle stop violated his Fourth
Amendment rights as an unreasonable search and seizure. Doc. No. 1. After reviewing
the pleadings as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court concludes that this case must
be DISMISSED without prejudice.

I. DISCUSSION

Vallejo’s complaint is subject to screening under the Prison Litigation Reform Act
(PLRA), which requires a district court to scrutinize claims in a civil action brought by a
prisoner and dismiss the complaint, in whole or in part, if it “is frivolous, malicious, or fails

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted;” or “seeks monetary relief from a

defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b).
1/4 .

Case 4:25-cv-02533 Document 9 Filed 05/30/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

Pleadings filed by pro se litigants must be construed under a less stringent standard
of review. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). Under this standard, a court
liberally construes a document filed pro se. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). However, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678.

Public records reflect that Vallejo was convicted of felony possession of a weapon
without a license in Harris County cause number 189435301010, as a result of the traffic
stop and search that he now challenges in a civil right action. See State v. Vallejo, Crim.
No. 189435301010 (248th Jud. Dist. Ct. Harris County, Tex. May 1, 2025). Vallejo’s civil
rights claims for relief in connection with his conviction are barred under the Supreme
Court’s holding in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Heck bars a civil
rights action, regardless of the type of relief sought, that would necessarily imply the
invalidity of the plaintiff's conviction or sentence, unless the conviction has previously
been invalidated through proper channels. Jd.; Kutzner v. Montgomery County, 303 F.3d

339, 340 (Sth Cir. 2002). Thus, before a plaintiff can pursue a claim for damages or

2/4

Case 4:25-cv-02533 Document9 _ Filed 05/30/26 in TXSD Page 3of4

injunctive relief arising from allegedly unlawful actions which, if proven, would also show
the plaintiff's conviction or sentence to be invalid, the plaintiff must first show that his
conviction or sentence has been reversed on appeal, expunged by executive order, or called
into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Jd.

Vallejo’s claims are inextricably linked to the legality of his conviction in State v.
Vallejo, supra. He alleges that the traffic stop where the police uncovered his weapon was
illegal and constituted an unreasonable search and seizure. His claims directly challenge
his conviction because a judgment favorable to him on his present civil rights claims would
necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction and sentence as being wrongfully
obtained. Because Vallejo does not show that his conviction has been overturned or
invalidated through proper channels, his current civil rights claims are barred by Heck and
must be dismissed.

II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court ORDERS that:

1. Juan Jose Vallejo’s Complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice under 28
US.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B), 1915A(b)(1), for failure to state a claim on which relief may be
granted based on Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).

2. This dismissal constitutes a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

The Clerk of Court shall send a copy of this dismissal to the parties and to the Clerk

of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,

3/4

Case 4:25-cv-02533 Document9 Filed 05/30/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4

515 Rusk Street, Houston, Texas, 77002, Attention: Three-Strikes List Manager, at:

Three_Strikes@txs.uscourts.gov.

~
SIGNED on this 20 day of May 2026.

I

ANDREW S. HANEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4/4