1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

MATTHEW HOGAN,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

BEXAR COUNTY, BEXAR COUNTY 

ADULT DETENTION CENTER, 

BEXAR COUNTY ADULT DETENTION 

CENTER ADMINISTRATION, FNU 

WALKER, BEXAR COUNTY SHERIFF 

DEPUTY (CHIEF OF 

DETENTION/ASSISTANT JAIL 

ADMINISTRATOR);

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

SA-20-CV-00652-DAE

ORDER

This order concerns Defendants Bexar County, Bexar County Adult Detention Center, 

and Bexar County Sheriff Deputy Walker’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Matthew Hogan’s First 

Amended Complaint [#33]. All pretrial matters have been referred to the undersigned for 

disposition pursuant to Western District of Texas Local Rule CV-72 and Appendix C [#26]. The 

undersigned has authority to enter this order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 

In in addition to the motion, the undersigned also considered Plaintiff’s Response [#38], 

Defendants’ Reply [#39], Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint [#42], and Defendants’ 

Unopposed Advisory [#43]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court orders that Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss [#33] be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

I. Background & Procedural History

Plaintiff Matthew Hogan is an inmate currently house at Travis County State Jail. 

(Notice of Change of Address [#40].) The instant case was filed on May 28, 2020, when 

Case 5:20-cv-00652-DAE-ESC Document 44 Filed 04/29/21 Page 1 of 4
2

Plaintiff was still a pre-trial detainee at Bexar County Adult Detention Center (“BCADC”). 

(Compl. [#1].) Plaintiff proceeded pro se until he retained Anthony Cantrell as counsel, whose 

first appearance was September 14, 2020. (Notice of App. [#25].) Subsequent to Plaintiff’s 

retention of counsel, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a First Amended Complaint (Sept. 

18, 2020 Order [#28]). 

In his First Amended Complaint,1the live pleading, Plaintiff claims that Defendants 

deprived him “of his rights” by placing him in administrative segregation from February 10, 

2020 until at least October 1, 2020. (Am. Compl. [#30] ¶ 6.) In the live pleading, he asserts 

claims against Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, and for violations of the ABA 

Criminal Justice Standards 23-3.6(a),(b), 23-3.7(c) and 23-3.8(b)(c). (Id. at ¶¶ 13–14.) Plaintiff

asks for monetary damages. (Id. at ¶¶ 17–18.)

The motion before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended 

Complaint, which argues the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to 

state a claim. In Plaintiff’s Response to this motion, he requests that his civil rights claim be 

construed as a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and not, as he pleaded, under the ABA 

Criminal Justice Standards. (Pl. Resp. [#38], at 2.) Plaintiff also indicates that he wishes to 

abandon his claim for monetary damages on his civil rights claim, and clarifies he is only 

requesting declaratory and injunctive relief on these claims. (Id.) In their Reply, Defendants 

argue that Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief under Section 1983 is moot because, as of 

October 26, 2020, he is no longer housed in administrative segregation at BCDAC. (Def. Reply 

[#39] ¶ 5.)

1 Plaintiff mistakenly styled his First Amended Complaint as a “Fourth Amended Complaint.”

Case 5:20-cv-00652-DAE-ESC Document 44 Filed 04/29/21 Page 2 of 4
3

Plaintiff has also filed a Second Amended Complaint [#42]—without first seeking leave 

to do so. The Second Amended Complaint clarifies that he is invoking Section 1983 with regard 

to his civil rights claims. But contrary to what he indicated in his response, Plaintiff now states 

that he is no longer seeking any declaratory or injunctive relief, just monetary damages. (Second 

Am. Compl. [#42], at 5–6.) Defendants filed an Unopposed Advisory informing the Court that 

counsel for the parties discussed the status of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss in light of the 

Second Amended Complaint. (Advisory [#43], at 2.) The parties “agree[d] that Plaintiff’s 

Second Amended Complaint does not present new allegations that render moot Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss.” (Id.) Defendants asks that the Court, if it considers the Second Amended 

Complaint to be the live pleadings in the case, construe their arguments in the Motion to Dismiss 

to the viability of the claims in the Second Amended Complaint or order Defendants to file a 

Response to the Second Amended Complaint. 

Although Plaintiff did not seek leave of the Court before filing a Second Amended 

Complaint, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to file it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 (a)(2) (“The court 

should freely give leave when justice so requires.”)

But given Plaintiff has changed course in terms of both the relief he is seeking and the 

underlying legal basis for his claims, the Court disagrees with the parties that the arguments in 

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint can be applied to the 

Second Amended Complaint. The Court will therefore dismiss the pending motion, and requests 

that Defendants file an amended motion tailored to the causes of action asserted and relief 

requested in the Second Amended Complaint.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First 

Amended Complaint [#33] is DIMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Case 5:20-cv-00652-DAE-ESC Document 44 Filed 04/29/21 Page 3 of 4
4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants should file a responsive pleading to 

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint on or before May 13, 2021. 

SIGNED this 29th day of April, 2021.

ELIZABETH S. ("BETSY") CHESTNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00652-DAE-ESC Document 44 Filed 04/29/21 Page 4 of 4