IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

EDWARD LEE GONZALES and MICHELE 

RENEE GONZALES,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LARISSA M. HILE, JENNA SEENEY, 

WILLIAM LONGIOIS, PATRICK H. 

MCDONALD, LARRY SPEARS, JR., CITY 

OF ORANGE, LANE MARTIN, MIKE 

KUNTZ, DYLAN JINKS, WADE 

ROBERTSON, ANTHONY GRANTHAM, 

LESLIE LOVELACE, JASON 

ASHWORTH, STEPHEN WARD, 

ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF’S 

DEPARTMENT, LISA GARZA, THE 

MEDICAL CENTER OF SOUTHEAST 

TEXAS, JIMMY MOONEY, MICHAEL 

KOLCUN, VALBHAV KHASGLWALIA,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-CV-227-MJT-CLS

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [Dkt. 45]

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Local Rules of Court for the Assignment of Duties to 

United States Magistrate Judges, the District Court referred this proceeding to the Honorable 

Christine L. Stetson to conduct all pretrial proceedings, to enter findings of fact and recommend 

disposition on case-dispositive matters, and to determine non-dispositive matters. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1); E.D. TEX. LOCAL R. CV-72. 

On September 18, 2023, Judge Stetson issued a Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 45] 

with the following conclusions and recommendations: (1) Plaintiff Michelle Gonzales asserts no 

claims against Defendants Hile and Seeney, (2) Defendants Hile and Seeney are not state actors 

Case 1:23-cv-00434-MJT-CLS Document 18 Filed 12/05/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 202
2

under 42 U.S.C. §1983, (3) Plaintiff Edward Gonzales’s lacks standing under 42 U.S.C. §1983 to 

sue Defendants Hile and Seeney as state actors, (4) the Court should grant Defendant Hile and 

Seeney’s motion under 12(b)(1) as to the claims in which Defendants Hile and Seeney are 

alleged to be state actors, (4) Plaintiff Edward Gonzales fails to properly plead that a conspiracy 

exists under 42 U.S.C. §1983 between Defendants Hile and Seeney and the police, and (5) the 

Court should grant Defendants Hile and Seeney’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) as to 

those conspiracy claims.

I. Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Report and Recommendation are Overruled

On October 12, 2023, Plaintiffs filed objections to the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 

47]. Plaintiffs’ objections were filed timely. A party who timely files specific, written 

objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation is entitled to a de novo

determination of those findings or recommendations to which the party specifically objects. 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2)-(3). To be specific, an objection must identify 

the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the 

objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where the 

disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to 

the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Frivolous, conclusive or general 

objections need not be considered by the district court.” Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 

410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. 

Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1412 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

Although Plaintiffs filed written objections in a timely manner, they failed to specifically 

identify the findings or recommendations to which he objected—including the place in the 

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found—in 

several portions of the objections [Dkt. 47]. Additionally, much of the objections merely restates

Case 1:23-cv-00434-MJT-CLS Document 18 Filed 12/05/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 203
3

arguments from Plaintiffs’ complaint [Dkt. 1] and their construed response to Defendants Hile 

and Seeney’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 38], and are somewhat disorganized and irrelevant to 

Judge Stetson’s Report and Recommendation. Nonetheless, the Court will conduct a de novo

review of the findings and recommendations of the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. 45] to 

which Plaintiffs have discernably objected.

Plaintiffs’ only discernable objection is that Judge Stetson erred in finding that Plaintiffs

did not sufficiently plead that Defendants Hile and Seeney conspired with local police [Dkt. 45 at 

7, 8, 24, and 42]. 42 U.S.C. §1983 allows individuals to sue those who act “under color of any 

statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of 

Columbia.” 42 U.S.C. §1983. Under §1983, “[p]rivate individuals are generally not considered 

to act under state law.” Ballard v. Wall, 413 F.3d 510, 518 (5th Cir. 2005); Gilbert v. French, 

665 F. Supp. 2d 743, 766 (S.D. Tex. 2009). Only in rare circumstances where private actors 

“conspired” with government actors, will courts find a private party acted under color of law. 

Richard v. Hoechst Celanese Chem. Grp., 355 F.3d 343, 353 (5th Cir. 2003). Presumably, 

Plaintiffs also object to the dismissal of the conspiracy claims with prejudice under Rule 

12(b)(6). 

To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the complaint must contain sufficient facts, which accepted as true, “state a claim to 

relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 667 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). To be plausible, the complaint’s “[f]actual 

allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Great Lakes 

Dredge & Dock Co. LLC v. Louisiana, 624 F.3d 201, 210 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Twombly, 550 

U.S. at 555). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows 

Case 1:23-cv-00434-MJT-CLS Document 18 Filed 12/05/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 204
4

the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 

alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

Rule 12(b)(6) must be read in tandem with Rule 8(a), which requires “a short and plain 

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see 

also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. To decide whether the complaint 

states a valid claim for relief, the Court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true and construes the 

complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Great Lakes Dredge, 624 F.3d at 210. 

However, the Court does not accept as true “conclusory allegations, unwarranted factual 

inferences, or legal conclusions.” Id. (quoting Ferrer v. Chevron Corp., 484 F.3d 776, 780 (5th 

Cir. 2007)). “While legal conclusions can provide the complaint’s framework, they must be 

supported by factual allegations.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. The inquiry focuses on the allegations 

in the pleadings and not on whether the plaintiff has sufficient evidence to succeed on the merits. 

Ackerson v. Bean Dredging, LLC, 589 F.3d 196, 209 (5th Cir. 2009).

Proceeding pro se, Plaintiffs’ pleadings are necessarily held to “less stringent standards 

than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers,” and are liberally construed by the Court. See Haines 

v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Perez v. United States, 312 F.3d 191, 194-95 (5th Cir. 

2002). 

Even under the less stringent standards placed on a pro se plaintiff’s pleadings, Plaintiffs 

make only conclusory allegations of conspiracy. See, e.g., [Dkt. 47 at 7] (“Defendants Conspired 

Under 18 U.S.C.241 and 242”); [id. at 8] (alleging Defendants Hile and Seeney “[c]onspired 

with officers in trying to charge me for something we didn’t do”); [id. at 24] (describing the 

officers as “conspiring with nurses in what to put on statement to make a worse charged if you 

put this in there”); [id. at 32] (“Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Hile and Seeney Conspired with 

Officers and Gave False statements.and False Reporting and theft by deception”). Additionally, 

Case 1:23-cv-00434-MJT-CLS Document 18 Filed 12/05/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 205
5

based on Plaintiffs’ alleged version of events, Defendants Hile and Seeney relayed to the police 

Plaintiffs’ “exact words” [id. at 24] and directed the police to video footage [id. at 25], and the 

police “believe[d] [the Defendants] 100%” [id. at 28]. Taken as true, those facts suggest 

Defendants Hile and Seeney cooperated, rather than conspired, with the police. See Bogus v. 

Harris Cnty Dist. Atty., 830 F. App’x 746, 748 (S.D. Tex. 2020) (finding private individuals do 

not act under the color of state law for §1983 purposes by merely providing information to law 

enforcement).

The Court also agrees with Judge Stetson’s finding that leave to amend to cure the above 

deficiencies in Plaintiff Edward Gonzales’s civil conspiracy claim would be futile. The body 

camera footage submitted by Plaintiffs shows that Officer McDonald and Captain Longlois 

interviewed Defendants Hile and Seeney on June 24, 2022, regarding their interactions with the 

Plaintiffs. The video shows that Officer McDonald requested each Defendant prepare a 

statement, writing what they saw, what was said, using exact language, and how they felt about 

their interactions with Plaintiffs. The body camera footage of Officer McDonald also shows him 

waiting while the Defendants prepare their statements. Nothing in the body camera footage 

reveals any agreement between the Defendants and the officers to commit an illegal act as would 

be required to assert a claim for civil conspiracy under §1983. As such, any attempt at amending 

this claim is futile and the Court finds will not give Plaintiffs leave to amend. Stripling v. Jordan 

Prod. Co., LLC, 234 F.3d 863, 872-73 (5th Cir. 2000) (noting leave to amend to cure 

deficiencies in pleadings be freely granted unless amendments would be futile).

Nothing in the record reflects the allegation that Defendants Hile and Seeney conspired 

with the police to violate Plaintiff Edward Gonzale’s constitutional rights. Accordingly, the 

Court agrees with Judge Stetson that Plaintiffs fail to state a civil conspiracy claim for which 

relief can be granted. Plaintiffs’ civil conspiracy claims are dismissed with prejudice.

Case 1:23-cv-00434-MJT-CLS Document 18 Filed 12/05/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 206
6

II. Conclusion and Order

The Court has conducted a de novo review of Plaintiffs’ objections in relation to the 

pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, 

Plaintiffs’ objections [Dkt. 47] are OVERRULED. The Report and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge [Dkt. 45] is ADOPTED. Defendants Hile and Seeney’s Joint 

Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 14] is GRANTED, in part, under Rule 12(b)(1) as to claims that allege 

Defendants Hile and Seeney are state actors for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. §1983, and 

GRANTED, in part, under Rule 12(b)(6) as to those claims which allege Defendants Hile and 

Seeney conspired with state actors for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. §1983.

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 17th day of October, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00434-MJT-CLS Document 18 Filed 12/05/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 207