Dalilah Agiza, Sui Juris v. Cesar Garcia, in his official and individual capacity as Judge of County Court at Law No. 10, Robert Vasquez, in his official and individual capacity as Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1, Constables of Precinct 2, Bexar County, in their official and individual capacities, Manuel Escobar, Jr. in his individual and professional capacity, Janet Moy, in her individual capacity, Jimmy Moy, in his individual capacity, Bexar County, Texas, a municipal entity, Clerks of County Court 10, names presently unknown, in their official and individual capacities

W.D. Texas

Dalilah Agiza, Sui Juris v. Cesar Garcia, in his official and individual capacity as Judge of County Court at Law No. 10, Robert Vasquez, in his official and individual capacity as Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1, Constables of Precinct 2, Bexar County, in their official and individual capacities, Manuel Escobar, Jr. in his individual and professional capacity, Janet Moy, in her individual capacity, Jimmy Moy, in his individual capacity, Bexar County, Texas, a municipal entity, Clerks of County Court 10, names presently unknown, in their official and individual capacities

District Court, W.D. Texas·Decided April 26, 2026·No. 5:25-cv-01239·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

DALILAH AGIZA, SUI JURIS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:25-CV-01239-JKP

CESAR GARCIA, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS JUDGE OF COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 10, ROBERT VASQUEZ, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 2, PLACE 1, CONSTABLES OF PRECINCT 2, BEXAR COUNTY, IN THEIR OFFI- CIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACI- TIES, MANUEL ESCOBAR, JR. IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND PROFES- SIONAL CAPACITY, JANET MOY, IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, JIM- MY MOY, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CA- PACITY, BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS, A MUNICIPAL ENTITY, CLERKS OF COUNTY COURT 10, NAMES PRES- ENTLY UNKNOWN, IN THEIR OF- FICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACI- TIES,

Defendants.

O R D E R Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate and Reinstate Case. ECF No. 13. It ap- pears a duplicate of this Motion has also been filed. ECF No. 14. Upon consideration, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate and Reinstate Case, (ECF No. 13), and will moot the du- plicate of this Motion, (ECF No. 14). LEGAL STANDARD The Court evaluates a motion seeking reinstatement of a case or relief from judgment ei- ther as a motion to “alter or amend a judgment” under Rule 59(e) or as a motion for “relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” under Rule 60(b). Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 n.2 (5th Cir. 2012). The Court determines the applicable rule based on the time of

filing. Id. If the movant filed the motion within twenty-eight days after the entry of judgment, the Court analyzes it under Rule 59(e), and if the movant filed the motion outside of that time, the Court analyzes it under Rule 60(b). Id. Because Plaintiff filed her Motion to Vacate and Rein- state Case three (3) days after the Court’s March 30, 2026, dismissal of her case, the Court con- siders the motion under Rule 59(e).1 To prevail on a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e), the moving party must show (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3) a manifest error of law or fact. See Schiller v. Physicians Resource Group Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003). A Rule 59(e) motion is “not the proper vehicle for

rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004). Although courts have “considerable discretion” to grant or to deny a Rule 59(e) motion, they use the “ex- traordinary remedy” under Rule 59(e) “sparingly.” Id. When considering a motion to alter or amend a judgment, “[t]he court must strike the proper balance between two competing imperatives: (1) finality, and (2) the need to render just decisions on the basis of all the facts.” Edward H. Bohlin Co., Inc. v. Banning Co., Inc., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993).

1 E.g., Emmett v. Dir., Texas Dep't of Crim. Just., Corr. Institutions Div., No. 3:21-CV-01581, 2022 WL 379951 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2022), R. & R. adopted sub nom. Emmett v. Dir., TDCJ-CID, No. 3:21-CV-01581, 2022 WL 378198 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2022). DISCUSSION Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the instant suit against Defendants on October 1, 2025. ECF No. 1. On February 19, 2026, the Court ordered that within thirty (30) days Plaintiff shall either pay the requisite filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 9. Because Plaintiff failed to comply, On March 30, 2026, the Court dismissed this case.

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate and Reinstate Case, (ECF No. 13). The Motion does not implicate either an intervening change in law or the availability of new evi- dence, but it does implicate a manifest error of fact. Per Plaintiff, “Plaintiff did not ignore the Court’s Order. On February 23, 2026—only four days after the Order was issued—Plaintiff mailed the required documentation to the Clerk’s Office.” ECF No. 13 at 2. Plaintiff attached to the Motion a Cover Letter and AO Form 240 dated February 23, 2026. Id. at 6–8. Plaintiff also attached a USPS tracking number, 9405536207705280155530, indicating the documents were mailed but ultimately returned to sender. Id. at 5. Because it appears Petitioner is attempting to comply with the Court’s Order, the balance tips in favor of consideration of the need to render a

decision on the merits of the case. As such, the Court’s Order dismissing this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) will be vacated. Plaintiff is ADVISED to participate in electronic filing and obtain the ability to file doc- uments free and view/download a free copy of anything filed in this case. The Court wishes to clarify that there is no charge to participate in electronic filing or to review orders and other doc- uments filed in a case if you are a party to that case. The Court will send an email to all regis- tered e-filer parties in a case with a link to view and download any document filed in the case. The Court will issue a separate order addressing the steps to take to participate in the Court’s electronic filing system. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate and Rein- state Case, (ECF No. 13), and MOOTS the duplicate of this Motion, (ECF No. 14). The Court’s March 30, 2026, Order dismissing this case without prejudice is VACATED. The Court DI- RECTS the Clerk of Court to RE-OPEN this case. Plaintiff is ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of receipt of this Order Plaintiff shall either pay the requisite filing fee or submit a new, complete application to proceed in forma pau- peris. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this lawsuit. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail, via certified mail with return receipt requested, a copy of this Order to: 1) Dalilah AGiza, P.O. Box 1394, Castroville, Texas 78009. The Clerk of Court is FURTHER DIRECTED to email a copy of this Order to: 1. agizaestatenfo@gmail.com; and 2. dagizal@gmail.com It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 26th day of April, 2026. □ / ain PUCK DW STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

DALILAH AGIZA, SUI JURIS,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 5:25-CV-01239-JKP

CESAR GARCIA, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS JUDGE OF COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 10, ROBERT VASQUEZ, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS JUSTICE OF THE PEACE, PRECINCT 2, PLACE 1, CONSTABLES OF PRECINCT 2, BEXAR COUNTY, IN THEIR OFFI- CIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACI- TIES, MANUEL ESCOBAR, JR. IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND PROFES- SIONAL CAPACITY, JANET MOY, IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, JIM- MY MOY, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CA- PACITY, BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS, A MUNICIPAL ENTITY, CLERKS OF COUNTY COURT 10, NAMES PRES- ENTLY UNKNOWN, IN THEIR OF- FICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACI- TIES,

Defendants.

O R D E R Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate and Reinstate Case. ECF No. 13. It ap- pears a duplicate of this Motion has also been filed. ECF No. 14. Upon consideration, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate and Reinstate Case, (ECF No. 13), and will moot the du- plicate of this Motion, (ECF No. 14). LEGAL STANDARD The Court evaluates a motion seeking reinstatement of a case or relief from judgment ei- ther as a motion to “alter or amend a judgment” under Rule 59(e) or as a motion for “relief from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” under Rule 60(b). Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 n.2 (5th Cir. 2012). The Court determines the applicable rule based on the time of

filing. Id. If the movant filed the motion within twenty-eight days after the entry of judgment, the Court analyzes it under Rule 59(e), and if the movant filed the motion outside of that time, the Court analyzes it under Rule 60(b). Id. Because Plaintiff filed her Motion to Vacate and Rein- state Case three (3) days after the Court’s March 30, 2026, dismissal of her case, the Court con- siders the motion under Rule 59(e).1 To prevail on a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e), the moving party must show (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not previously available; or (3) a manifest error of law or fact. See Schiller v. Physicians Resource Group Inc., 342 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 2003). A Rule 59(e) motion is “not the proper vehicle for

rehashing evidence, legal theories, or arguments that could have been offered or raised before the entry of judgment.” Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473, 479 (5th Cir. 2004). Although courts have “considerable discretion” to grant or to deny a Rule 59(e) motion, they use the “ex- traordinary remedy” under Rule 59(e) “sparingly.” Id. When considering a motion to alter or amend a judgment, “[t]he court must strike the proper balance between two competing imperatives: (1) finality, and (2) the need to render just decisions on the basis of all the facts.” Edward H. Bohlin Co., Inc. v. Banning Co., Inc., 6 F.3d 350, 355 (5th Cir. 1993).

1 E.g., Emmett v. Dir., Texas Dep't of Crim. Just., Corr. Institutions Div., No. 3:21-CV-01581, 2022 WL 379951 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 24, 2022), R. & R. adopted sub nom. Emmett v. Dir., TDCJ-CID, No. 3:21-CV-01581, 2022 WL 378198 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2022). DISCUSSION Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the instant suit against Defendants on October 1, 2025. ECF No. 1. On February 19, 2026, the Court ordered that within thirty (30) days Plaintiff shall either pay the requisite filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 9. Because Plaintiff failed to comply, On March 30, 2026, the Court dismissed this case.

Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate and Reinstate Case, (ECF No. 13). The Motion does not implicate either an intervening change in law or the availability of new evi- dence, but it does implicate a manifest error of fact. Per Plaintiff, “Plaintiff did not ignore the Court’s Order. On February 23, 2026—only four days after the Order was issued—Plaintiff mailed the required documentation to the Clerk’s Office.” ECF No. 13 at 2. Plaintiff attached to the Motion a Cover Letter and AO Form 240 dated February 23, 2026. Id. at 6–8. Plaintiff also attached a USPS tracking number, 9405536207705280155530, indicating the documents were mailed but ultimately returned to sender. Id. at 5. Because it appears Petitioner is attempting to comply with the Court’s Order, the balance tips in favor of consideration of the need to render a

decision on the merits of the case. As such, the Court’s Order dismissing this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) will be vacated. Plaintiff is ADVISED to participate in electronic filing and obtain the ability to file doc- uments free and view/download a free copy of anything filed in this case. The Court wishes to clarify that there is no charge to participate in electronic filing or to review orders and other doc- uments filed in a case if you are a party to that case. The Court will send an email to all regis- tered e-filer parties in a case with a link to view and download any document filed in the case. The Court will issue a separate order addressing the steps to take to participate in the Court’s electronic filing system. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate and Rein- state Case, (ECF No. 13), and MOOTS the duplicate of this Motion, (ECF No. 14). The Court’s March 30, 2026, Order dismissing this case without prejudice is VACATED. The Court DI- RECTS the Clerk of Court to RE-OPEN this case. Plaintiff is ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of receipt of this Order Plaintiff shall either pay the requisite filing fee or submit a new, complete application to proceed in forma pau- peris. Failure to comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this lawsuit. The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail, via certified mail with return receipt requested, a copy of this Order to: 1) Dalilah AGiza, P.O. Box 1394, Castroville, Texas 78009. The Clerk of Court is FURTHER DIRECTED to email a copy of this Order to: 1. agizaestatenfo@gmail.com; and 2. dagizal@gmail.com It is so ORDERED. SIGNED this 26th day of April, 2026. □ / ain PUCK DW STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dalilah Agiza, Sui Juris v. Cesar Garcia, in his official and individual capacity as Judge of County Court at Law No. 10, Robert Vasquez, in his official and individual capacity as Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1, Constables of Precinct 2, Bexar County, in their official and individual capacities, Manuel Escobar, Jr. in his individual and professional capacity, Janet Moy, in her individual capacity, Jimmy Moy, in his individual capacity, Bexar County, Texas, a municipal entity, Clerks of County Court 10, names presently unknown, in their official and individual capacities, (W.D. Tex. 2026).

Pincite

Dalilah Agiza, Sui Juris v. Cesar Garcia, in his official and individual capacity as Judge of County Court at Law No. 10, Robert Vasquez, in his official and individual capacity as Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1, Constables of Precinct 2, Bexar County, in their official and individual capacities, Manuel Escobar, Jr. in his individual and professional capacity, Janet Moy, in her individual capacity, Jimmy Moy, in his individual capacity, Bexar County, Texas, a municipal entity, Clerks of County Court 10, names presently unknown, in their official and individual capacities (Dalilah Agiza, Sui Juris v. Cesar Garcia, in his official and individual capacity as Judge of County Court at Law No. 10, Robert Vasquez, in his official and individual capacity as Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2, Place 1, Constables of Precinct 2, Bexar County, in their official and individual capacities, Manuel Escobar, Jr. in his individual and professional capacity, Janet Moy, in her individual capacity, Jimmy Moy, in his individual capacity, Bexar County, Texas, a municipal entity, Clerks of County Court 10, names presently unknown, in their official and individual capacities) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related