Reyes-Medrano v. Investigator Lopez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION
DAVID ABISAI REYES-MEDRANO, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Civil Action No. 7:25-CV-00363
§
INVESTIGATOR LOPEZ, et al., §
§
Defendants. §
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is the March 3, 2026, Memorandum and
Recommendation (“M&R”) prepared by Magistrate Judge Juan F. Alanis, (Dkt. No. 27),
and Plaintiff’s March 15, 2026, Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections to Report
and Recommendation, (Dkt. No. 28). The Court addresses each in turn.
Plaintiff asks for a 90-day extension to file objections to Judge Alanis’s M&R. (Dkt.
No. 28). He cites his “significant visual impairment” and his attempts “to obtain legal
assistance.” (Id. at 2). The Court is unpersuaded that those reasons justify his requested
extension. (See id.). First, the Court agrees with Judge Alanis’s assessment that Plaintiff’s
visual impairment does not preclude his ability to “effectively represent himself” in this
case. (7:25-CV-00362, Dkt. No. 33 at 30). Judge Alanis observes that the record shows
that Plaintiff has filed pleadings, requested summonses for all defendants, submitted
addendum, drafted and filed motions, and filed other lawsuits against different
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 24, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 7:25-cv-00363 Document 29 Filed 03/24/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 4

2
defendants raising similar claims—all without counsel.1 (See id.). The undersigned
therefore finds that same record also extends to Plaintiff’s ability to read and prepare
objections to Judge Alanis’s M&R. (See id.). Second, Judge Alanis held two status
hearings and twice granted Plaintiff generous extensions to amend and clarify his
complaint and to obtain counsel. (Dkt. Entry, Dated Sept. 26, 2025); (Dkt. Entry, Dated
Dec. 5, 2025). During the second extended window, Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint—still scant on facts needed to support his claims—on December 9, 2025, (Dkt.
No. 19); (Dkt No. 27 at 4), but he failed to obtain counsel. The Court therefore DENIES
Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension, (Dkt. No. 28).
The Court next addresses Judge Alanis’s M&R. Judge Alanis made findings and
conclusions in his M&R, (Dkt. No. 27), and recommended that Plaintiff’s Complaint, (Dkt.
Nos. 2, 6, 19),2 be dismissed. The Parties were provided proper notice and the
1 In a civil case, appointment of counsel is not a constitutional right, and is provided only
when exceptional circumstances exist. Day v. Amazon. com Inc., No. 4:24-CV-512-P, 2024 WL
6051481 , at *1 (N.D. Tex. June 17, 2024) (citing Lopez v. Reyes, 692 F.2d 15, 17 (5th Cir. 1982)). In
determining whether exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel courts look
at: (1) the type and complexity of the case; (2) plaintiff’s ability to present and investigate the case;
(3) the presence of conflicting testimony and necessity of skilled cross-examination; (4) likelihood
the appointment would benefit the court, plaintiff, and defendants by shortening the trial and
assisting in just determination. Naranjo v. Thompson, 809 F.3d 793, 799 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Parker
v. Carpenter, 978 F.2d 190, 193 (5th Cir. 1992) (emphasis added)).
2 Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is the current live pleading and does not
incorporate by reference any of the prior filings. (See Dkt. No. 19); see King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344,
346 (5th Cir. 1994) (“An amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders it of
no legal effect unless the amended complaint specifically refers to and adopts or incorporates by
reference the earlier pleading.”) (citing Boelens v. Redman Homes, Inc., 759 F.2d 504, 508 (5th Cir.
1985)). As such, the Original Complaint (Dkt. No. 2) and subsequently filed addendum (Dkt. No.
6) are of no legal effect. However, in an abundance of caution, and affording the pro se Plaintiff
the benefit of liberal construction, the Court has reviewed the legitimacy of all pleadings filed by
Plaintiff. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595–96, 30 L.Ed.2d. 652 (1972); see
(continue)
Case 7:25-cv-00363 Document 29 Filed 03/24/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 4

3
opportunity to object to the M&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No
party filed an objection. As a result, review is straightforward: plain error. Guillory v.
PPG Indus., Inc., 434 F.3d 303, 308 (5th Cir. 2005). No plain error appears.
Accordingly, the Court accepts the M&R and adopts it as the opinion of the Court.
It is therefore ordered that:
(1) Judge Alanis’s M&R, (Dkt. No. 27), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in its
entirety as the holding of the Court;
(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections to Report and
Recommendation, (Dkt. No. 28), is DENIED;
(3) Plaintiff’s Complaint, (Dkt. Nos. 2, 6, 19), is DISMISSED as follows:
a. Plaintiff’s claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are DISMISSED with
prejudice for failure to state a claim;
b. Plaintiff’s claims brought against the municipality under Monell are
DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim;
c. Plaintiff’s claims brought under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to
state a claim; and
d. Any and all claims brought under Texas state law are DISMISSED
without prejudice; and
(4) Plaintiff’s Motion for Criminal Investigation, (Dkt. No. 7), Motion for
Service of Process, (Dkt. No. 20), Motion for ADA Accommodation, (Dkt.
No. 21), Motion for Liberal Construction of the Filings, (Dkt. No. 22),
Motion for Special Appearance and Process Under an Alias, (Dkt. No. 23),
Motion to Compel Discovery, (Dkt. No. 24), Motion for Subpoena Duces
Tecum, (Dkt. No. 25), and Motion to Consolidate Cases, (Dkt. No. 26), are
all DENIED as moot.
also Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420, 426-27 (5th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, the Court dismisses
both complaints and the addendum as a matter of course given the liberal incorporation of all the
documents under Judge Alanis’s M&R, (Dkt. No. 27).
Case 7:25-cv-00363 Document 29 Filed 03/24/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 4

4
It is SO ORDERED.
Signed on March 24, 2026.
___________________________________
DREW B. TIPTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 7:25-cv-00363 Document 29 Filed 03/24/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4