Davis v. Faubion, No. 5:25-CV-0336-JKP-RBF (Oct. 1, 2025)

Case details
Full caption
Gavin B. Davis v. Chief Officer Gina Faubion, et al.
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decided
Oct. 1, 2025
GAVIN B. DAVIS, Plaintiffs, v. CHIEF OFFICER GINA FAUBION,..., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 2795301Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, W.D.Texas, San Antonio Division.GAVIN B. DAVIS,1 Plaintiffs,v.CHIEF OFFICER GINA FAUBION, U.S. PRETRIALSERVICES; AND OFFICER KARLA RAMOS,U.S. PRETRIAL SERVICES, Defendants.Case No. 5:25-CV-0336-JKP-RBF|Filed 10/01/2025ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT ANDRECOMMENDATION OF UNITEDSTATES MAGISTRATE JUDGEJASON PULLIAM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE*1 Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation ofUnited States Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 8) (“R&R”), filedon August 27, 2025. Pursuant to the screening provisions of28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Magistrate Judge recommends thatthe Court dismiss the complaint with prejudice as frivolousand for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which reliefcan be granted.The Magistrate Judge identifies three claims from the“protracted, difficult-to-follow proposed Complaint”: (1)violations of the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), (2)abuse of process, and various forms of negligence. R&R at 4.The Magistrate Judge construes the alleged negligence claimsas leading to the violation of various Constitutional rights andfurther notes that it appears that Plaintiff brings direct claimsfor violations of his constitutional rights. Id. The MagistrateJudge identifies requested relief as monetary damages, otherdamages, and declarato-ry relief but recognizes the chieffocus as obtaining a new pretrial services officer. Id.As for the APA claim, the Magistrate Judge provides authorityfor finding that Plaintiff cannot plausibly allege such a claimagainst staff members of the United States Pretrial Services,which operates under the supervision of the judiciary. Id. at5. As for the other claims, the Magistrate Judge states thatthe complaint is devoid of facts to support required elementsand declines to sift through the voluminous, difficult-tofollow complaint. Id. The Magistrate Judge characterizesthis action as an “attempt to collaterally attack or otherwisesidestep events in [Plaintiff's] criminal case.” Id. Finally, theMagistrate Judge found that it would be futile to permitPlaintiff to file a more definite statement in an attempt to moreadequately plead his constitutional claims. Id. at 6.Plaintiff has filed purported objections to the R&R. See ECFNo. 12. Because he agrees that his original complaint isprotracted and difficult to follow, he seeks an opportunityto file an amended complaint. See id. 2. He surmisesthat he will be able to file an amended complaint that iscapable of surviving § 1915 dismissal because he was ableto survive dismissal in a different case after being allowed toamend. Id. While Plaintiff regrets proceeding under the APA,he contends that his research through artificial intelligence(“AI”) indicates that he can sue pretrial services officers under42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens while also recognizing that hisresearch shows that such individuals are often protected byimmunity. Id. 3.As another basis for filing an amended complaint, Plaintiffstates that he is not bringing any direct claim for violationsof constitutional rights, but the facts and allegations areconstructive to his action and central to his claim against thepretrial officers. Id. 4. He further contends that he wouldbe able to meaningful address alleged abuses of process orconstitutional claims in an amended complaint. Id. 7. Citingto a dissenting opinion from a dissenting opinion, Plaintiffcontends that he may have a Fourth Amendment violation.Id. (citing United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 760 (1979)(Marshall, J., dissenting) (citing United States v. White, 401U.S. 745, 790 (1971) (Harlan, J., dissenting)). Plaintiff alsosubmits that an amended complaint will not seek monetarydamages. Id. 5. But he concedes “that collateral mattersregarding the terms and conditions of pretrial release areunder attack.” Id. 6.*2 With respect to his alleged focus to obtain a new pretrialservices officer, he submits that he has filed a petition under28 U.S.C. § 2241 to address that matter. Id. 8. He disagreesthat the current lawsuit is an attempt to collaterally attackor otherwise sidestep events of his criminal case. Id. 9.He also disagrees that an amendment would be futile. Id. 10. He asserts that he should be able to obtain declaratoryor other relief for alleged unlawful pretrial detention. Id. Heasserts that unlawful conditions of release were imposed. Id.Relying on liberal construction afforded pro se filings, he
GAVIN B. DAVIS, Plaintiffs, v. CHIEF OFFICER GINA FAUBION,..., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2contends that he “can easily prove Abuse(s) of Process andConstitutional violations by the Defendants.” Id. 12.Plaintiff views the Magistrate Judge's declination to siftthrough his original complaint as fair. Id. 13. Thus, giventhe assertions and contentions of his objections, Plaintiffrequests either (a) an opportunity to amend his complaint toprovide a more concise and well-pleaded complaint or (b) anopportunity to “borrow and pay” either the $55 administrativefee or the $405 filing fee. Id.Notably, Plaintiff objections are short on actual objections tothe R&R. And his requested relief essentially concedes thathe needs an amended complaint to survive a § 1915 analysis.The Court will not consider Plaintiff's proposal to borrow andpay any part of the required fees for pursuing a civil action infederal court. This case has proceeded beyond that point.As for the request to amend, the Magistrate Judgepreemptively stated that it would be futile to allow Plaintiff anopportunity to expand upon the allegations of his complaint.Plaintiff has not shown that statement to be clearly erroneousor contrary to law. Instead, he relies on his own subjectivebelief that an amendment will survive § 1915 scrutiny. Sucha subjective belief is in-sufficient to obtain leave to amend apleading.Plaintiff's objections also reveal reliance on AI research.While use of this developing tool for legal research is notof itself necessarily problematic, the Fifth Circuit requireslitigantusers of AI, even pro se litigants, to “verify theaccuracy of AI-generated information.” Garces v. Hernandez,No. 25-50342, 2025 WL 2401001, at *2 (5th Cir. Aug.19, 2025) (per curiam), pet. cert. filed, 2025 WL 2401001,No. 25-5558 (Sept. 4, 2025). A recent Standing Order fromour sister court in the Northern District of Texas providesa thorough overview regarding the litigantuse of AI thattranscends the local rules of that court. See Willis v. U.S. BankNat'l Ass'n as Tr., Igloo Series Tr., 783 F. Supp. 3d 959 (N.D.Tex. 2025).From his AI research, Plaintiff relies on a dissentingopinion that itself cites to another dissenting opinion. Whiledissenting opinions may prove useful in legal research, theydo not provide binding, definitive statements of law thatof themselves justify an amendment. The AI research alsosuggests a possible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 even thoughthat statute has no applicability to the federal actors suedin this case. In potential recognition of that fact, Plaintiffalso generically mentions “Bivens,” which refers to Bivens v.Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,403 U.S. 388 (1971), a case that has been described as “ ‘inessence’ the federal counterpart to § 1983, which applies tostate officials acting under color of state law,” Abate v. S.Pac. Transp. Co., 993 F.2d 107, 111 (5th Cir. 1993). His AIresearch also recognizes that pretrial services officers may beentitled to immunity for their actions, but Plaintiff makes noeffort to address why immunity would not render asserting aBivens claim futile.*3 Furthermore, Plaintiff's proposed Bivens claim relatesto alleged unlawful conditions of release and Plaintiff hasmade no showing that Bivens applies to such an allegedconstitutional violation. Even when a plaintiff has namedindividuals who may be proper Bivens defendants, as here,the plaintiff must identify a constitutional violation that couldplausibly entitle him to relief against the named defendants.See Robbins v. U.S. Prob. Off. for Dist. of Minniapolis,No. 20-CV-1918-LRR, 2021 WL 1255402, at *4 (D. Minn.Mar. 18, 2021) (recognizing that the plaintiff intended to sueprobation office for the District of Minnesota), aff'd sub nom.Robbins v. U.S. Prob. Off., Dist. of Minn., No. 21-1740, 2021WL 4472670 (8th Cir. July 2, 2021).Plaintiff concedes that his APA claim was ill-advised andsubject to dismissal. Caselaw supports that concession. See id.He has also filed a subsequent habeas petition under 28 U.S.C.§ 2241 in recognition that some claims for relief fall withinhabeas litigation rather than a typical civil action. Despitehis conclusory assertions within his objections, Plaintiff hasnot presented factual allegations to state a plausible claimagainst the named defendants for abuse of process or anyconstitutional violation. And to the extent he might seek topursue a claim of negligence against the named defendants,such a claim would necessarily fail. See Valenta v. BI Inc., No.CV 20-912, 2021 WL 3081902, at *5 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 1, 2021)(recommendation of Mag. J.) adopted by 2021 WL 3080147(W.D. Pa. July 21, 2021).Whether to grant leave to amend is within the Court's sounddiscretion. U.S. ex rel. Willard v. Humana Health Plan of Tex.Inc., 336 F.3d 375, 387 (5th Cir. 2003). While courts shouldprovide an opportunity to amend before dismissing an action,leave to amend is not required when plaintiffs have alreadypled their “best case.” See Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764,768 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). In this case, Plaintiff hasprovided no reason for the Court to believe that he has notpled his best case. He provides no factual allegations within
GAVIN B. DAVIS, Plaintiffs, v. CHIEF OFFICER GINA FAUBION,..., Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3his objections to state a plausible claim that warrants leave toamend.Finding no error upon a de novo review of those portionsof the recommendation to which objection was made andreviewing the remaining portions for clear error, the CourtACCEPTS the Report and Recommendation of United StatesMagistrate Judge (ECF No. 8), filed on August 27, 2025.It DISMISSES this action with prejudice under 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e) as recommended and will finalize such dismissalwith a separate judgment dismissing this case. Further, for thereasons stated herein, the Court denies Plaintiff's request tofile an amended complaint.It is so ORDERED this 1st day of October 2025.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2025 WL 2795301Footnotes1Although the complaint lists H-Fin Capital Partners, LLC as a plaintiff, that entity has not paid any filing fee forthis action. And while the Court has granted Plaintiff Gavin Davis permission to proceed in forma pauperis,that permission only applies to him, and it is black letter law that an entity cannot proceed without licensedcounsel. See Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-03 (1993) (per curiam). The Magistrate Judgeconsidered this case to be only on behalf of the individual plaintiff. Because the individual plaintiff cannotlitigate this case pro se and without prepayment of the filing fee as it relates to the entity listed as a plaintiff,the Court likewise treats this case as only pursued by the individual plaintiff.End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access