Garces v. Doe et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
MATTHEW ANDREW GARCES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
NICK DOE, STORE
MANAGER/OWNER; METRO BY T-
MOBILE CORPORATE ENTITY,
METRO BY T-MOBILE LLC,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
5-25-CV-00578-OLG-RBF
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
To the Honorable United States District Judge Orlando L. Garcia:
This Report and Recommendation concerns Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. See Dkt. No.
13. Certain pretrial matters in this action have been referred for resolution by the Magistrate Judge,
pursuant to Rules CV-72 and 1 of Appendix C to the Local Rules for the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas. See Text Order entered on May 29, 2025. Authority to
enter this recommendation stems from 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). For the reasons set forth below,
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 13, should be STRUCK from the record. Moreover, the
case should be DISMISSED.
This Court entered an Order on the docket on September 3, 2025, granting Plaintiff’s
request to proceed in forma pauperis and ordering Plaintiff, within 14 days from the September 2,
2025, date of that Order, to file a more definite statement or otherwise show cause why the
Complaint should not be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failure to state a non-frivolous
claim upon which relief could be granted. See Dkt. No. 8. Meanwhile, on September 4, 2025,
Case 5:25-cv-00578-OLG Document 14 Filed 12/03/25 Page 1 of 6

2
another Judge of the Court entered an order in another case involving Plaintiff Matthew Garces,
determining that Garces is a vexatious litigant and ordering that he be enjoined from filing further
lawsuits in the Western District of Texas without first obtaining permission from a Judge of the
Court. Dkt. Nos. 14 & 34 in Garces v. Rossbach et al, 5:25-cv-00441-JKP (W.D. Tex. Sep. 4,
2025).
The docket for the present case reflects that this Court’s September 2 Order was delivered
to and received by Plaintiff on September 3, 2025. See Dkt. No. 10. Plaintiff, however, failed to
comply with the Court’s September 2 Order. Instead, without seeking or obtaining leave of this
Court, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on October 4, 2025, which was over 30 days after
the date of the Court’s September 2 Order and well after the Order’s deadline for the filing of any
Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 13. The Amended Complaint is therefore untimely, without leave
of Court, and filed in violation of a Court order.
The Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiff’s efforts, expressed in the Amended Complaint and
not in a separate motion for leave, to attribute the Amended Complaint’s untimeliness to the
Court’s delivery of the September 2 Order to Plaintiff. Plaintiff complains as follows:
Plaintiff Matthew Andrew Garces files this First Amended Complaint outside the
14-day deadline Judge Farrer set. The Court failed to deliver its order via electronic
mail as Plaintiff’s previously requested Americans with Disabilities Act
accommodations required. This failure prevented Plaintiff from timely accessing
the Court’s order.
Dkt. No. 13 at 1. As mentioned, the record indicates that the Court’s September 2 Order was
delivered to and received by Plaintiff on September 3, 2025. Dkt. No. 10. Plaintiff, like any other
party, is furthermore responsible for keeping abreast of developments in the case as they appear
on the Court’s docket. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d) & 5(b). The Court, moreover, is unaware of any
obligation undertaken by the Court to email Orders or other matters to Plaintiff, as opposed to
Case 5:25-cv-00578-OLG Document 14 Filed 12/03/25 Page 2 of 6

3
serving them in compliance with the federal rules. See id. It appears Plaintiff requested and was
granted leave to file electronically shortly after entry of the September 2 Order. Dkt. No. 2; Text
Order entered on Sep. 3, 2025. So, Plaintiff could have accessed the docket online and viewed the
Court’s September 2 Order at any point after its entry.
The Court now explains its decision to strike Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and further
recommend the extreme measure of dismissing the case. First, Plaintiff did not seek leave to
untimely file his Amended Complaint, and he instead filed it while blaming the Court for his
tardiness. This alone warrants striking the pleading as untimely and in violation of a Court order.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(f).
Second, and extremely important to the Court’s recommendation of dismissal without an
opportunity to further amend, is this plaintiff’s history, of which the Court takes judicial notice. A
Cease and Desist Order was entered in this case on May 29, 2025. It admonished Plaintiff for
having “created havoc in the District Clerk’s Office, which prevented personnel from attending to
their professional responsibilities.” Dkt. No. 4. Next, on September 4, 2025, a different Judge of
the Court entered an order in another case, determining that Plaintiff Garces is a vexatious litigant
and enjoining him from filing further lawsuits in the Western District of Texas without first
obtaining permission from a Judge of the Court. Dkt. Nos. 14 & 34 in Garces v. Rossbach et al,
5:25-cv-00441-JKP (W.D. Tex. Sep. 4, 2025). Finally, there is Plaintiff’s other behavior in this
case, as discussed above.
All of this is to say that the Court is not at liberty to further waste limited judicial resources
shepherding this vexatious pro se litigant through the civil litigation process in case after vexatious
case. That Plaintiff has been issued a Cease and Desist Order for wreaking havoc in the Clerk’s
Office and declared a vexatious litigant for repeatedly taxing this Court’s time, energy, and
Case 5:25-cv-00578-OLG Document 14 Filed 12/03/25 Page 3 of 6

4
attention with frivolous and vexatious lawsuits leads the Court in no small part, in addition to the
other matters discussed above, to recommend that the Amended Complaint be struck from the
record as untimely and for failure to comply with a Court Order. See Dkt. No. 34 in Garces v.
Rossbach et al, 5:25-cv-00441-JKP (W.D. Tex. Sep. 4, 2025) (noting Plaintiff’s litigation history
and declaring him a vexatious litigant who must first seek leave of court before filing any more
lawsuits in this District). Plaintiff should have anticipated that this Court would expect strict
compliance with the rules and deadlines, given his history of abusing the federal judicial system
and the warnings which have been issued to him as a result.
With the Amended Complaint struck from the docket, Plaintiff’s live pleading is the
original Complaint, docketed as such on September 2, 2025. Dkt. No. 9. For the reasons provided
in the Order granting IFP Status and Ordering a More Definite Statement, Dkt. No. 8, the
Complaint is deficient, and the deadline to amend it has long since passed. See id. at 4-7 (finding
that Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged a violation of the ADA, that Plaintiff’s only plausibly
alleged state law claim was his invasion of privacy claim, and that the Court did not have
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim due to the failure of the ADA claim). As
such, Plaintiff is in violation of the Order that he “file a more definite statement in the form of an
amended complaint or otherwise show cause why the present Complaint should not be dismissed
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) for failure to state a non-frivolous claim upon which relief could be
granted.” Id. at 7-8. Moreover, Plaintiff’s claims cannot stand in the form in which they are
currently pleaded, as they do not state a right to relief.
Therefore, it is recommended that the case be DIMISSED for failure to state a claim, see
§ 1915(e), and for failure to follow a Court Order pursuant to Rules 16(f) and 41(b), given
Case 5:25-cv-00578-OLG Document 14 Filed 12/03/25 Page 4 of 6

5
Plaintiff’s untimely amendment of his original Complaint and failure to show cause as to why the
case should not be dismissed.
Conclusion and Recommendation
For the reasons discussed above, Plaintiff’ Amended Complaint, Dkt. No. 13, should be
STRUCK from the record. Furthermore, it is recommended that the case be DISMISSED.
Having considered and acted upon all matters for which the above-entitled and numbered
case was referred, it is ORDERED that the above-entitled and numbered case is RETURNED to
the District Court for all purposes.
Instructions for Service and Notice of Right to Object/Appeal
The United States District Clerk shall serve a copy of this report and recommendation on
all parties by either (1) electronic transmittal to all parties represented by attorneys registered as a
“filing user” with the clerk of court, or (2) by mailing a copy by certified mail, return receipt
requested, to those not registered. Written objections to this report and recommendation must be
filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of same, unless this time period is
modified by the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Objections, responses,
and replies must comply with the same page limits as other filings, unless otherwise excused by
the district court’s standing orders. See Rule CV-7. The objecting party shall file the objections
with the clerk of the court and serve the objections on all other parties. A party filing objections
must specifically identify those findings, conclusions, or recommendations to which objections are
being made and the basis for such objections; the district court need not consider frivolous,
conclusory, or general objections. A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed
findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report shall bar the party from a de
novo determination by the district court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-52 (1985); Acuña v.
Case 5:25-cv-00578-OLG Document 14 Filed 12/03/25 Page 5 of 6

6
Brown & Root, Inc., 200 F.3d 335, 340 (5th Cir. 2000). Additionally, failure to timely file written
objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report
and recommendation shall bar the aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain error, from
attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by
the district court. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996)
(en banc).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 3rd day of December, 2025.
RICHARD B. FARRER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-00578-OLG Document 14 Filed 12/03/25 Page 6 of 6