1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN DIVISION 

JOHN PAUL CASARES #1929744 § 

 § 

v. § A-20-CV-594-LY-SH 

 § 

DETECTIVE STEPHANIE SCHAFER § 

 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

TO: THE HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

The Magistrate Judge submits this Report and Recommendation to the District Court, pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 1(f) of Appendix C of the Local Court Rules. Before the Court is 

Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has been granted leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis. 

I. Statement of the Case 

At the time he filed his complaint, Plaintiff was confined in the Travis County Correctional 

Complex. Plaintiff alleges that on October 10, 2019, Detective Stephanie Schafer of the Austin 

Police Department racially profiled him. As evidence of racial profiling, Plaintiff refers to the 

detective’s arrest affidavit, in which she described Plaintiff as a Hispanic male occupying a vehicle 

parked near the pumps at a gas station. Plaintiff asks the Court to dismiss his pending state criminal 

charges, and also seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages, and a declaratory judgment. 

Travis County, Texas court records show that Plaintiff was arrested for the manufacture and 

delivery of a controlled substance and evading arrest.1

 Plaintiff subsequently was indicted in Cause 

1 See https://public.traviscountytx.gov/aaro/Default/CaseDetails?caseNumber=621734 (last visited July 21, 2020). 

Case 1:20-cv-00594-LY Document 5 Filed 07/21/20 Page 1 of 6
2 

No. D-1-DC-19-207087 for the manufacture and delivery of a controlled substance in penalty 

group 1, greater than or equal to four grams but less than 200 grams; Cause No. D-1-DC-19-

207088, for the possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (methamphetamine 4-

200 grams); Cause No. D-1-DC-19-207089, for the possession of a controlled substance with the 

intent to deliver (crack cocaine 1-4 grams); and Cause No. D-1-DC-19-207091, for evading arrest 

with a vehicle. 

In her affidavit, Detective Schafer attested that she was conducting a directed patrol in the area 

of Montopolis Drive and East Riverside Drive on October 10, 2019. She claimed this area is known 

for the distribution of narcotics and other violent crimes. She observed one vehicle parked near the 

pumps at a gas station in the area and described the driver as a single Hispanic male. She later 

identified the driver as John Paul Casares (Plaintiff). According to Detective Schafer, she checked 

the vehicle’s license plate and discovered that the vehicle had an expired registration, expired 

insurance, and a prior history involving narcotics in August 2019. She stated that she suspected 

Plaintiff was in the area to sell narcotics. 

Detective Schafer attested that, as she pulled out of the parking lot in her marked police vehicle, 

Plaintiff quickly exited the parking lot, turned onto northbound Montopolis Drive, and turned off 

the headlights on the vehicle. She observed the vehicle swerving from the left to right lanes and 

back several times without signaling intent for a lane change. She activated her emergency lights. 

Detective Schafer attested that the vehicle made a slow stop and then, as she was exiting her patrol 

vehicle, quickly sped off. She reported that the vehicle continued to drive erratically, eventually 

colliding into a concrete barrier at an intersection. The detective observed Plaintiff attempting to 

jump out of the driver’s window. According to Detective Schafer, she drew her Taser and fired at 

him, causing Plaintiff to fall from the window onto the ground. 

Case 1:20-cv-00594-LY Document 5 Filed 07/21/20 Page 2 of 6
3 

Detective Schafer avers that Officer Robles, who also was present, advised her that he saw 

Plaintiff throw a black bag over the concrete barrier when Plaintiff tried to exit the vehicle. 

Detective Schafer listed the content of the black bag as follows: three small clear bags with a white 

rock substance (crack cocaine net weight 3.3 grams); five small clear bags with a clear crystal 

substance (crystal methamphetamine net weight 5.6 grams); clear wrapping containing a sticky 

brown substance (heroin net weight 5.9 grams); two glass vials containing 53 white bar style pills 

(2mg Alprazolam net weight 15.9 grams); eleven individually sealed sublingual films identified 

as Suboxone (buprenorphine 8 mg/naloxone 2 mg); two black plastic bags containing a green 

plant substance (K2 net weight 15.9 grams); a small scale; and approximately 100 empty individual 

dose plastic baggies. 

II. Discussion and Analysis 

A. Standard under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) 

An in forma pauperis proceeding may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) if 

the court determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief 

may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from suit. A dismissal 

for frivolousness or maliciousness may occur at any time, before or after service of process and 

before or after the defendant’s answer. Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1119 (5th Cir. 1986). 

When reviewing a plaintiff’s complaint, the court must construe plaintiff’s allegations liberally. 

See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). The plaintiff’s pro se status, however, does not offer 

him “an impenetrable shield, for one acting pro se has no license to harass others, clog the judicial 

machinery with meritless litigation and abuse already overloaded court dockets.” Farguson v. 

MBank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986). 

Case 1:20-cv-00594-LY Document 5 Filed 07/21/20 Page 3 of 6
4 

B. Racial Profiling 

A claim of racial profiling is a claim that one’s equal protection rights have been violated. 

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996) (holding that claims asserting selective 

enforcement of law based on race are properly brought under Equal Protection Clause and clause 

may be violated even if police action is acceptable under Fourth Amendment). To state a claim of 

racial discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff “must 

allege and prove that he received treatment different from that received by similarly situated 

individuals and that the unequal treatment stemmed from a discriminatory intent.” Priester v. 

Lowndes Cty., 354 F.3d 414, 424 (5th Cir. 2004) (quoting Taylor v. Johnson, 257 F.3d 470, 473 

(5th Cir. 2001)). A discriminatory purpose “implies that the decision maker singled out a particular 

group for disparate treatment and selected his course of action at least in part for the purpose of 

causing its adverse effect on an identifiable group.” Id.

Plaintiff makes only a conclusory allegation that he was profiled and does not allege he was 

treated differently than any similarly situated non-Hispanic motorist. Plaintiff thus fails to assert a 

cognizable claim for equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. A plaintiff’s “subjective 

belief of discrimination, however genuine, [cannot] be the basis of judicial relief.” Elliott v. Grp. 

Med. & Surgical Serv., 714 F.2d 556, 567 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff 

seeks an award of damages against Detective Schafer, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon 

which relief may be granted. 

C. Younger Abstention 

The remainder of the relief Plaintiff seeks is subject to application of the Younger abstention 

doctrine. The Younger abstention doctrine requires that federal courts decline to exercise 

jurisdiction when three conditions are met: “(1) the federal proceeding would interfere with an 

Case 1:20-cv-00594-LY Document 5 Filed 07/21/20 Page 4 of 6
5 

ongoing state judicial proceeding; (2) the state has an important interest in regulating the subject 

matter of the claim; and (3) the plaintiff has an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to 

raise constitutional challenges.” Bice v. La. Pub. Defender Bd., 677 F.3d 712, 716 (5th Cir. 2012). 

All prerequisites for Younger abstention are met in this case. 

III. Recommendation 

The undersigned recommends that Plaintiff’s claims seeking damages against Defendant 

Schafer be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and that Plaintiff’s remaining claims be dismissed without 

prejudice pursuant to Younger abstention. 

It is further recommended that Plaintiff be warned that if, while he is a prisoner, he files more 

than three actions or appeals that are dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a 

claim on which relief may be granted, he will be prohibited from bringing any other actions in 

forma pauperis unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 

In the event that this Report and Recommendation is accepted, adopted, or approved, it is 

recommended that the Court direct the Clerk to e-mail a copy of its order and judgment to the 

keeper of the three-strikes list. 

IV. Objections 

The parties may file objections to this Report and Recommendation. A party filing objections 

must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which objections are being made. 

The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. 

United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). A party’s failure to file written 

objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained within this Report within 

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo 

Case 1:20-cv-00594-LY Document 5 Filed 07/21/20 Page 5 of 6
6 

review by the District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations and, except on grounds 

of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate review of proposed factual findings and legal 

conclusions accepted by the District Court to which no objections were filed. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. 

Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). 

SIGNED on July 21, 2020.

 SUSAN HIGHTOWER 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:20-cv-00594-LY Document 5 Filed 07/21/20 Page 6 of 6