Reyes-Medrano v. Moya et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 7:26-cv-00169 Document8- Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD Pagelof5
| United States District Court

i

United States District Court Ce era
Southern District of Texas
| 3 ENTERED
JUN 12 2026 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT June 12, 2026
jl a SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk = MCALLEN DIVISION
DAVID ABISAI REYES-MEDRANO, §
: §
Plaintiff, §
§
VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:26-CV-0169
§
HILARIO MOYA, et al., §
| §
| Defendants. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

| Plaintiff DAVID ABISAJ REYES-MEDRANO, appearing pro se, has filed this civil action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, complaining of the violation of his constitutional rights by the City of

Mission, Texas and several of its officials, including two officers associated with the Mission

Police Department (the “MPD”). (Dkt. No. 1). The general basis of the complaint is that the
defendants failed to investigate criminal wrongdoing reported by Plaintiff and then failed to
respond to his public record and information requests regarding the investigation.!

This case was referred to the Magistrate Judge for report and recommendation pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Upon reviewing the record and the relevant law, the Magistrate Judge
RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's claims be DISMISSED with prejudice for the failure to state a

claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

i
I
|

' Plaintiff has filed lawsuits against the City of Pharr and the City of Edinburg and their respective officials
based on similar allegations. Reyes-Medrano v. Garza, et al., Civil Action No. 7:25-CV-0362 (S.D. Tex.);
Reyes-Medrano v. Lopez, et al., Civil Action No. 7:25-CV-0363 (S.D. Tex). These suits were summarily
dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. Plaintiff has filed at least three other lawsuits before this
court, all of which were summarily dismissed as duplicative of the others. Reyes-Medrano v. Moreno, et
al., Civil Action No. 7:25-CV-0397 (S.D. Tex.); Reyes-Medrano v. Andrade, Civil Action No. 7:25-CV-
0450 (S.D. Tex.); Reyes-Medrano v. Garza, Civil Action No. 7:25-CV-0451 (S.D. Tex).

? Because Plaintiff is not appearing in forma pauperis, his pleadings are not subject to screening under 28
U.S.C. § 1915 of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The Magistrate Judge recently ordered Plaintiff to

AUTHENTICATED

U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION ~

GPO!

Case 7:26-cv-00169 Document8- Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD Page2of5

I, FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff alleges that he submitted a tip to the MPD regarding illegal activity at a local
smoke shop, “where unrestricted smoking products were . . . being sold in violation of applicable
laws.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 1). According to Plaintiff, however, “[his] complaint appears to have been
disregarded and effectively pushed aside without proper investigation or follow-through.” (Jd).
After his tip was seemingly ignored, Plaintiff attempted to obtain documentation of the
investigation by submitting to Mission a public records request. (See id.; see also Dkt. No. 1-1).
The requested records, however, were never released, and Plaintiff contends that “[t}his lack of
transparency raises serious concerns about compliance with the Texas Public Information Act and
the integrity of the [MPD’s] investigative process.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 1). “As a result of this
situation[,]” Plaintiff continues, “[he] [has] suffered . . . health conditions that [he] attribute[s] to
[smoke] exposure and the failure of authorities to act in a timely and responsible manner.” (/d.).

Il. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Rule 12(b)(6)—Failure to State a Claim

However inartfully pleaded, pro se complaints must be held to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (quoting Haines
v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)) (quotations omitted). That said, even pro se plaintiffs are
ultimately subject to Rule 12(b)(6).

To satisfy Rule 12(b)(6), the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as

true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Rogers v. Boatright, 709 F.3d 403, 407

either pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 6), but the order was returned as
undeliverable (Dkt. No. 7), and Plaintiff has failed to comply. Nevertheless, the law is clear that a district
court may sua sponte review and dismiss a pro se plaintiff's pleadings for the failure to state a claim under
Rule 12(b)(6)._ See Edmond v. Brap, LLC, 2021 WL 5969294, at *1-2 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2021) (citing
Carroll y. Fort James Corp., 470 F.3d 1171, 1173 (Sth Cir. 2006)), report and recommendation adopted,
2021 WL 5967561 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2021).

2/5

Case 7:26-cv-00169 Document8_ Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD Page3of5

(5th Cir. 2013) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)) (quotations omitted). The
court construes the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff, takes all facts pleaded in the
complaint as true, and considers whether, with every doubt resolved on the plaintiffs behalf, the
complaint states any valid claim for relief. Harrington v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 563 F.3d

141, 147 (Sth Cir. 2009) (quotations omitted).

Indeed, a complaint fails to state a claim where it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or _

fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A claim lacks an arguable basis in law to
the extent 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.” Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 507
(5th Cir. 1999). A claim lacks an arguable basis in fact if the facts alleged are clearly baseless, a
category encompassing allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional. Denton v.
Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (quoting Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 325-28) (quotations omitted).
B. Section 1983
Section 1983 “creates a private right of action for redressing violations of federal law by
those acting under color of state law.” Olabisiomotosho v. City of Houston, 185 F.3d 521, 525
(5th Cir. 1999). The violation of law must involve the deprivation of rights or privileges secured
by federal statute or constitutional norms. Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107, 132 (1994). To
act under the color of law means to act under the “pretense” of law. Screws v. United States, 325
U.S. 91, 111 (1945). Municipalities and cities qualify as persons liable to suit under § 1983.
Monell vy. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690 (1978)).
Iii. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff does not state any cognizable claims under § 1983. A private citizen enjoys no

general constitutional right to have another person criminally investigated. See Reyes-Medrano v.

3/5

Case 7:26-cv-00169 Document8- Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD Page4of5

Garza, 2026 WL 815304, at *9 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2026) (Alanis, M.J.) (collecting cases), report
and recommendation adopted, 2026 WL 813913 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2026) (Tipton, D.J.); see also
Miller v. Harris Cnty., 2011 WL 4456094, at *9 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2011) (citing Lewis v. Jindal,
368 F. App’x 613, 614 (Sth Cir. 2010) (per curiam)). Nor is there a general constitutional right to
access non-judicial files related to criminal investigations. See Wessler v. U.S. Coast Guard, 2020
WL 10232966, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2020) (citing Ctr. for Nat’l Sec. Studies v. U.S. Dep’t of
Just., 331 F.3d 918, 933-36 (D.C. Cir. 2003)).
IV. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs claims be
DISMISSED with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6) for the failure to state a claim.’
Notice to the Parties
Within fourteen (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)(1)(C); Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b). Failure to file written objections within fourteen (14) days after service shall bar
an aggrieved party from de novo review by the District Judge on an issue covered in this report
and from appellate review of factual findings accepted or adopted by the District Judge, except on
grounds of plain error or manifest injustice.
Directive to Clerk of Court
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to forward a copy of this report to Plaintiff by any

receipted means.

3 Although a court must generally allow a pro se plaintiff at least one opportunity to amend the pleadings
to correct any pleading defects, this restriction does not apply where the facts alleged are fantastic or
delusional or the legal theory upon which a claim relies is indisputably meritless. See Gregory v.
McKennon, 430 F. App’x 306, 309 (Sth Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (quoting Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9n.5
(5th Cir. 1994)) (quotations omitted).

4/5

Case 7:26-cv-00169 Document8- Filed 06/12/26 in TXSD Page5of5

DONE at McAllen, Texas, this 12th day of June 2026.

aT
hes Magistrate Judge

5/5