Reyes-Medrano v. Moreno et al

DA YID ABISAI
REYES-MEDRANO,
Plaintiff,
vs.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISION
§
§
§
§
§ 	CIV. NO. 7:25-cv-00397
§
JORGE MORENO,
SERGEANT RODRIGUEZ,
CITY OF EDINBURG,
§
§
§
Defendants. 	§
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff, David Abisai Reyes-Medrano, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by filing
Plaintiff's Complaint on August 11, 2025, against Defendants Jorge Moreno, Sergeant Rodriguez,
and the City of Edinburg. (See Dkt. No. 2). Plaintiff alleges various infractions under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Rehabilitation Act (RA). 	(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.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Original Complaint on August 11 , 2025. 1 (See Dkt. No. 2). 	Therein,
Plaintiff alleges he was physically assaulted by Sergeant Moreno on May 27, 2023, despite
1 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 Hernandez v. Thaler, 630 F.3d 420,
426-27 (5th Cir. 2011) ("It is the substance ofthe relief sought by a prose pleading, not the label that the
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 06, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 7:25-cv-00397 Document 8 Filed 03/06/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

advising him of a disability and medical condition. (Id. at 9, 17). Plaintiff claims Sergeant Moreno
struck him in a known soft spot on his skull, causing permanent vision damage. (Id. at 9). Further,
Plaintiff asserts he was denied access to a supervisor and ignored his request for medical
accommodation. 	(Id.) . Thus, Plaintiff argues Sergeant Moreno 's actions violated the ADA and
RA, and that his refusal to de-escalate the situation, provide access to higher authority, or
acknowledge Plaintiff's disability constitutes gross misconduct and a violation of his civil rights.
(Id.). 	Plaintiff claims this caused permanent impairment to his eyesight, emotional distress and
trauma, financial hardship due to disability-related limitations, and loss of dignity and equal
protection under the law. (Id.) .
On the 	same date, while Plaintiff requested a supervisor, Sergeant Rodriguez, the
designated supervisor, "failed to appear at the scene, denied the request for accommodation, and
later claims to have no memory ofresponding." (Dkt. No. 2-1 at 10). While Plaintiff was held in
custody at the Edinburg Police Department, Sergeant Rodriuez failed to investigate, respond, or
intervene, "despite clear indications of excessive force, medical need, and civil rights abuse." (Id.).
Plaintiff claims he was denied the right to file a report, denied access to a supervisor, and no
immediate medical evaluation was provided. (Id.) .
The Court held a hearing on September 26, 2025, for the purpose of discussing the status
of the case. (S ee Dkt. Entry, Dated September 26, 2025). There, the Court provided Plaintiff with
an additional deadline to file an amended complaint clarifying his claims, and Plaintiff conceded
that this lawsuit is duplicative of another, pending case.
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-00397 Document 8 Filed 03/06/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

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); s ee also 28 U.S .C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring dismissal of a case filed IFP
where it is determined the action is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted.).
An action is considered frivolous where "there is no arguable legal or factual basis for the
claim." Id. (citing Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 3 19 , 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 frivolous "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 dismissed 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 of Tex. at Aus., No. 1:22-
cv-00054-LY-SH, 2022 WL 790353, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2022) (collecting cases dismissing
3
Case 7:25-cv-00397 Document 8 Filed 03/06/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

duplicative claims as frivolous ), report and recommendation adopted, 2022 WL 22328996 (W.D.
Tex. Mar. 21 , 2022); Shelby v. Kar, No. 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. Offi ce 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, 2 023 WL 5058843 (N .D.
Tex. Aug. 8, 2023); Reyes v. City ofAustin, Inc. , No. 1:22-CV-0002-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).
B. 	Plaintiff's Claims
Plaintiff brings claims against Jorge Moreno, Sergeant Rodriguez, and the City of
Edinburg, specifically revolving around a May 27, 2023 , alleged excessive force incident and
apparent lack of response by the requested supervisor. 	(See generally Dkt. No. 2). 	Plaintiff's
claims are brought under 42 U.S .C. § 1983, Title II of the ADA, and Section 504 of the RA. (Id.) .
This lawsuit was filed on August 11 , 2025. (Se e Dkt. No. 2).
However, currently pending in this Court is a nearly identical lawsuit filed by Plaintiff in
Reyes-Medrano v. Investigator Lope z, et al, Case No. 7:25-cv-00363 (S.D. Tex. July 22 , 2025). In
that case, Plaintiff similarly lists the City of Edinburg, Sergeant Rodriguez, and Jorge Moreno as
defendants. (See Reyes -Medrano, v. Investigator Lopez, et al, Case No. 7:25-cv-00363 , Dkt. No.
2). 	That case also includes a May 27, 2023 , alleged excessive force incident involving Jorge
Moreno, Sergeant Rodriguez, and the City of Edinburg. 	(See Reyes -Medrano, v. Investigator
Lopez, et al, Case No. 7:25-cv-00363 , Dkt. No. 19 at 3). Plaintiff also seeks relief pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, the ADA, and the RA. 	(Id.). 	Plaintiff filed that lawsuit on July 22, 2025 . (See
Reyes -Medrano v. Investigator Lopez, et al, Case No . 7:25-cv-00363 , Dkt. No. 2). 	On March 3,
4
Case 7:25-cv-00397 Document 8 Filed 03/06/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

2026, this Court filed a Memorandum and Recommendation to the District Court, recommending
dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint. 	(See Reyes -Medrano v. Investigator Lopez, et al, Case No.
7:25-cv-00363 , Dkt. No. 27).
With the same Parties, facts, and legal claims, it appears the present case is duplicative of
another pending lawsuit, and Plaintiff conceded as much at the September 26, 2025, status
conference. Thus, Plaintiff's Co mplaint 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.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Recommended Disposition
After careful review of the filings and relevant case law, and for reasons outlined above, it
is recommended that Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. No. 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 novo 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.
5
Case 7:25-cv-00397 Document 8 Filed 03/06/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

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 Counsel for Defendants.
DONE at McAllen, Texas, this 6th day of March 2026.
Juan F. Alanis
United States Magistrate Judge
6
Case 7:25-cv-00397 Document 8 Filed 03/06/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 6