1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

ROBERT J. ESQUIVEL,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

LOGAN EASTBURN, DPS, TROOPER 

#14720; RYAN BIBBY, DPS, TROOPER 

#14593; NICHOLAS WINGATE, DPS, 

TROOPER #13157; AND TEXAS 

HIGHWAY PATROL DEPARTMENT OF 

PUBLIC SAFETY,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

SA-20-CV-00377-OLG

ORDER

Before the Court in the above-styled cause of action are Plaintiff’s pro se Motion for a 

Preliminary Injunction [#50] and Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanction [#51]. The Court ordered 

Defendants to respond to the motions. Defendants filed their response as ordered on January 3, 

2022 [#53]. Having considered the motions and response and record in this case, the Court will 

deny the motions.

By this suit, Plaintiff claims Defendants subjected him to an unlawful search and seizure 

and arrest, among other claims, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The record reflects that shortly 

after the Court entered its Scheduling Order, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking to modify the 

deadlines contained therein, due to a need for additional discovery and to amend the pleadings. 

The Court denied Defendant’s request to modify and reiterated that the discovery period expires 

on February 14, 2022 [#49]. In the Order, the Court directed Plaintiff to be diligent in requesting 

documents, serving interrogatories, and seeking to schedule depositions. 

Case 5:20-cv-00377-OLG-ESC Document 54 Filed 01/06/22 Page 1 of 4
2

Plaintiff’s “Motion for a Preliminary Injunction,” though titled as such, in fact asks the 

Court to reconsider its denial of Plaintiff’s motion to modify the Scheduling Order. The motion 

describes Plaintiff’s efforts to communicate with Defendants’ counsel in an attempt to reach an 

agreement on modifying the Scheduling Order, which were unsuccessful. Plaintiff’s motion also, 

however, asks the Court to grant an injunction “against defendant’s motion to dismiss” based on 

Defendants’ claim that they are entitled to qualified immunity “or any other motion filed by the 

defendants to dismiss the charges against them” until they have satisfied the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Yet there is no motion to dismiss pending in this case. Plaintiff then goes on to 

discuss the merits of his case and his belief that Defendants violated his constitutional right to be 

protected from unlawful search and seizure and asks the Court to order Defendants to submit an 

affidavit or more definite statement to clarify to the Court how their actions were within the 

scope of their authority. 

The Court will construe Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction as a motion for 

reconsideration of a prior order regarding the modification of a scheduling order and a motion to

compel discovery, both of which seek non-dispositive relief. Accordingly, the Court has 

authority to issue this Order disposing of the motion in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(A). 

Plaintiff’s motion for sanction asks the Court to sanction Defendants for violating Rule

11(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, accusing Defendants of failing to provide any 

specific evidence that they were acting within the scope of their duties and instead filing several 

motions to dismiss asserting a general (and unfounded) defense of qualified immunity. This 

motion also complains of Defendants’ failure to cooperate with discovery. 

Case 5:20-cv-00377-OLG-ESC Document 54 Filed 01/06/22 Page 2 of 4
3

Defendants’ response to the motions explains that prior to Plaintiff filing the pending 

motions, he called counsel for Defendants asking for their agreement to extend the Scheduling 

Order so he could have additional time to conduct discovery. Counsel directed Plaintiff to the 

previous order of the Court instructing Plaintiff to serve discovery. To date, Plaintiff still has not 

served any discovery requests on Defendants or sought any depositions. As Plaintiff has not 

served discovery, there is no basis to impose sanctions against Defendants for failure to 

cooperate with the discovery process. Both parties should have served each other with their 

initial disclosures at the beginning of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). If they have not 

done so already, they should do so within the next two weeks.

Additionally, insofar as Plaintiff desires Defendants to produce evidence of the 

constitutionality of their actions underlying this case, Plaintiff may obtain this information by 

serving Defendants with requests for production (to obtain documents related to the incidents in 

question). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Plaintiff may also obtain sworn answers to questions about 

the incidents in questions by serving Defendants with interrogatories pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

33 or by noticing Defendants’ depositions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30 (at which Plaintiff may 

ask Defendants questions in person about their conduct and the incidents in question). The 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure can be accessed on the Western District of Texas website and 

contain rules regarding the exchange of discovery. See https://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/courtinformation/appellate-federal-and-local-court-rules/ (last visited Jan. 6, 2022). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s pro se Motion for a Preliminary 

Injunction [#50] and Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanction [#51] are DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff or Defendants have not yet served their 

Rule 26 initial disclosures, they should do so on or before January 20, 2022.

Case 5:20-cv-00377-OLG-ESC Document 54 Filed 01/06/22 Page 3 of 4
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 6th day of January, 2022.

ELIZABETH S. ("BETSY") CHESTNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00377-OLG-ESC Document 54 Filed 01/06/22 Page 4 of 4