ROBBIE DALE THACKER 33276 v. SHERMAN POLICE DEPARTMENT ET AL (2026)

ORDER

Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, plaintiff Robbie Dale Thacker, currently confined in the Grayson County Jail, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thacker sues the Sherman Police Department and two unnamed Sherman Police Department officers.

In the operative complaint, Thacker alleges that, in October 2025, he was falsely arrested for driving while intoxicated and was injured during that arrest. Dkt. 6 at 3, 5–6. He also alleges that, in April 2025, he was falsely arrested for assault causing bodily injury based on a physical altercation with his ex-sister-in-law. Id. at 4–6. Thacker seeks dismissal of his criminal cases and damages for injuries sustained during his October 2025 arrest. Id. at 6.

Thacker's request that his state criminal cases be dismissed is not properly presented in a federal civil-rights action. See Coker v. DeBottis, No. 3:05-cv-0852-P (BH), 2006 WL 1880538, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 31, 2006), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:05-CV-0852-P, 2006 WL 1888641 (N.D. Tex. July 7, 2006); see also Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973) (holding that, “when a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus”). It is not the role of federal courts to intervene in state court criminal proceedings. “[A] state prisoner's § 1983 action is barred (absent prior invalidation)—no matter the relief sought (damages or equitable relief), no matter the target of the prisoner's suit (state conduct leading to conviction or internal prison proceedings)—if success in that action would necessarily demonstrate the invalidity of confinement or its duration.” Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81–82, (2005); see also Kyles v. Garrett, 353 F. App'x 942, 945 (5th Cir. 2009). “In Heck v. Humphrey, [512 U.S. 477 (1994),] the Supreme Court held that, in order to recover damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction, or for ‘harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid,’ a prisoner must show that the conviction or sentence has been ‘reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.’ ” Hardy v. Gonzalez, 551 F. App'x 253, 254 (5th Cir. 2014) (quoting Heck, 512 U.S. at 486–87). On the other hand, when criminal charges are pending, a civil-rights lawsuit should be stayed until the criminal charges pending against the plaintiff have run their course. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 393–94 (2007); Gates v. Strain, 885 F.3d 874, 883 (5th Cir. 2018); Profit v. Ouachita Parish, 411 F. App'x 708, 709 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam); DeLeon v. City of Corpus Christi, 488 F.3d 649, 655 (5th Cir. 2007); Cummings v. Webb, No. 4:20-CV-207-SDJ-CAN, 2020 WL 8484872, at *2–3 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 4:20-CV-207-SDJ, 2021 WL 489119 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2021). Although the complaint appears to be challenging state-court criminal charges that are ongoing, it does not provide the name of the court, cause numbers, or status of the underlying state-court criminal cases.

Additionally, the complaint appears to assert an excessive-force claim incident to Thacker's October 2025 arrest but lacks concrete, factual allegations supporting the elements of that claim, including the identity and actions of the Sherman Police officer involved. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8(a) requires a complaint to contain a short and plain statement of the claim, giving the defendant fair notice of the plaintiff's contentions. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A claim must rest on sufficient facts that allow the court to draw reasonable inferences, not on the plaintiff's bare conclusions. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The complaint, Dkt. 6, does not satisfy the Rule 8(a) standard.

Finally, Thacker has improperly named the Sherman Police Department as a defendant because it is a non-jural entity and, as such, cannot be sued. See Jeanty v. TXFM, Inc., No. 4:19-cv-366, 2020 WL 5797727, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2020) (collecting cases) (“More specifically, federal courts in Texas have found that police departments do not have a jural existence.”).

Instead of having his case dismissed outright, Thacker will be given an opportunity to amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in this order.

It is ORDERED that Thacker has 30 days from receipt of this order to file an amended complaint on a standard prisoner civil-rights form no more than 30 pages in length stating specific facts to support his claims. Thacker must:

1) legibly explain in detail when, where, and how his constitutional rights were allegedly violated;

2) identify the defendant responsible for each violation;

3) specify how each defendant personally violated his constitutional rights;

4) explain how he was harmed or injured by those violations;

5) specify what relief he seeks; and

6) provide the current status of his underlying state-court criminal cases, identified by court name, cause numbers, charged offense or offenses, and dispositions.

Thacker's amended complaint will replace all earlier-filed complaints and will become the operative pleading; it must comprehensively set forth his claims and should not refer to or attempt to incorporate the original complaint or any other complaint. Thacker should ensure that the case number, 4:26-CV-00691-BD, appears prominently on the front of his amended complaint.

Thacker is admonished that failure to comply with or otherwise respond to this order may result in dismissal of the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for want of prosecution.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 2nd day of September, 2026.

Bill Davis United States Magistrate Judge