Soward v. Foulds
4:25-cv-05325
S.D. Tex.Jan 8, 2026Check TreatmentDocket
Case 4:25-cv-05325 Document 10 Filed 01/08/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 7
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
January 08, 2026
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
SHANNAN RENEA CE SOWARD, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
V. § Civil Action No. H-25-5325
§
ANDREW FOULDS AND THE §
CITY OF ROSENBERG, §
§
Defendant. §
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Document No. 7). Having considered the
motion, submissions, and applicable law, the Court determines that the pending
motion should be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
This is a dispute stemming from a traffic stop conducted by a City of
Rosenberg Police Officer. On September 12, 2025, prose Plaintiff Shannan Reneace
Soward ("Soward") was stopped by Defendant Andrew Foulds, a police officer with
Defendant City of Rosenberg, Texas. Defendants contend that Soward was stopped
for failure to signal a lane change and not yielding to an emergency vehicle. During
the traffic stop, Officer Foulds issued Soward a traffic citation for a violation of the
Texas Transportation Code by failing to yield to an emergency vehicle and requested
Case 4:25-cv-05325 Document 10 Filed 01/08/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 7
Soward's signature on the citation. In doing so, Officer Foulds stated that signing
was "not an admission of guilt, just a promise to appear." 1 Soward alleges that
Officer Foulds "coerced Plaintiffs signature under threat of arrest, falsely reported
her refusal, and erased her signature." 2 Soward further alleges that she "experienced
fear, intimidation, emotional distress, and anxiety as a result of Officer Fould's
threats of arrest, coercion, and falsification of records during the traffic stop." 3
Based on the foregoing, on November 4, 2025, Soward filed suit in this Court
against the City of Rosenberg, Texas, and police officer Andrew Foulds, asserting
claims for violations of the Fourth and Fourteen Amendments under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. Soward seeks a total of $125,000.00 in damages for "emotional distress,
reputational injury, legal costs, [] deprivation of constitutional rights, and punitive
damages." 4 The Court construes all prose filings liberally. See Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). On December 12, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
Soward's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 5 Soward
1
Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 7.
2
Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 3.
3
Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 5.
4
Id.
5
See Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss, Document No. 9 at 1-30.
2
Case 4:25-cv-05325 Document 10 Filed 01/08/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 7
did not respond to the pending motion to dismiss within either the original response
date required under the federal rules of civil procedure, or the date of this Order.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule 12(b)(6) allows dismissal if a plaintiff fails "to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Under Rule 8(a)(2), a pleading must
contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although "the pleading standard Rule 8 announces
does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' ... it demands more than ... 'labels
and conclusions."' Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). "[A] formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, " [t]he
'court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable
to the plaintiff."' In re Katrina Canal Breeches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir.
2007) (quoting Martin K Eby Constr. Co. v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit, 369 F.3d 464,
467 (5th Cir. 2004)). To survive the motion, a plaintiff must plead "enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
"Conversely, 'when the allegations in a complaint, however true, could not raise a
claim of entitlement to relief,this basic deficiency should ... be exposed at the point
3
Case 4:25-cv-05325 Document 10 Filed 01/08/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 7
of minimum expenditure of time and money by the parties and the court."' Cuvillier
v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 558).
Ill. LAW & ANALYSIS
Defendants move to dismiss Soward' s complaint, contending that Soward
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Soward did not respond to the
motion to dismiss, failing to rebut or offer evidence to counter any of Defendants'
contentions. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.4, failure to respond is taken as a
representation ofno opposition. See S.D. Tex. Local R. 7.4. Regardless ofSoward's
failure to respond to the pending motion to dismiss, the Court will consider the merits
of Soward' s complaint and each claim Defendants contend should be dismissed.
Defendants primarily contend that Soward fails to allege facts which show a
plausible claim against Officer Foulds. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals
"against unreasonable searches and seizures." U.S. CONST. AMEND. IV. Traffic stops
are deemed seizures for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. See United States
v. Valadez, 267 F.3d 395,397 (5 th Cir. 2001). The legality of a traffic stop is analyzed
under the framework articulated in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). To evaluate
whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurred during a traffic stop, courts first
ask, "whether the officer's action was justified at its inception," and then, "whether
the officer's subsequent actions were reasonably related in scope to the
circumstances that justified the stop." United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 506
4
Case 4:25-cv-05325 Document 10 Filed 01/08/26 in TXSD Page 5 of 7
(5th Cir. 2004) (en bane). "For a traffic stop to be justified at its inception, an officer
must have an objectively reasonable suspicion that some sort of illegal
activity ... [has] occurred, or is about to occur, before stopping the vehicle." United
States v. Lopez-Moreno, 420 F.3d 420,430 (5th Cir. 2005). In evaluating an officer's
actions during a traffic stop, the Court considers "the facts and circumstances of each
case, giving due regard to the experience and training of the law enforcement
officers, to determine whether the actions taken by the officers, including the length
of the detention were reasonable under the circumstances. United States v. Brigham,
382 F.3d at 507.
Here, Defendants contend that Soward's complaint makes clear that Officer
Foulds was justified in stopping Soward and acted reasonably during the course of
the stop given the circumstances. A review of the record in this case shows that
Officer Foulds observed Soward changing lanes of traffic without signaling
continuously. Officer Foulds further observed Soward's failure to yield the right of
way to Officer Foulds' emergency police vehicle. Defendants contend that these
observations supported Officer Foulds' reasonable suspicion to stop Soward's
vehicle and investigate the suspected violation of Texas Transportation Code §
545.156, which requires drivers to yield to authorized emergency vehicle and
immediately drive as close as possible to the curb. See Tex. Trans. Code§ 545.156.
Soward offers no rebuttal. A review of Soward's complaint shows no alleged facts
5
Case 4:25-cv-05325 Document 10 Filed 01/08/26 in TXSD Page 6 of 7
showing reasonable susp1c10n was lacking for Officer Foulds' vehicle stop.
Accordingly, the Court determines that Officer Foulds' maintained the requisite
reasonable suspicion to stop Soward's vehicle. The Court will now consider whether
Officer Foulds' actions during the traffic stop were reasonable under the
circumstances.
Defendants contend that Officer Foulds correctly informed Soward of the
consequences of failing to comply with the Texas Transportation Code, issuing her
a citation for Soward's alleged violation of Tex. Trans. Code§ 545.156. A review
of Soward' s complaint reveals her only allegation of wrongdoing stems from Officer
Foulds' request for Soward to sign the citation, in which he stated Soward' s
signature was "not an admission of guilt, just a promise to appear." 6 Soward further
asserts grievances with Officer Foulds' decision to inform Soward that she would be
arrested unless she signed the traffic citation promising to appear or otherwise
resolve the infraction. Having considered the pending motion, submissions, and
applicable law, the Court finds that Soward has not shown that Officer Foulds' was
unreasonable in executing the traffic stop underlying this matter or that his actions
violated her Fourth or Fourteenth amendment rights. Accordingly, the Court finds
that Soward's claims against Officer Foulds should be dismissed for failure to state
6
Plaintiff's Complaint, Document No. 1 at 7.
6
Case 4:25-cv-05325 Document 10 Filed 01/08/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 7
a claim upon which relief can be granted. Furthermore, considering the Court's
finding that Officer Foulds did not violate Soward's constitutional rights, the Court
finds that Soward's claims against the City of Rosenberg should also be denied
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby
ORDERS that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Document No. 7) is GRANTED. The Court further
ORDERS that Plaintiff Shannan Reneace Soward's claims against all
Defendants are DISMISSED.
TIDS IS A FINAL JUDGMENT.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this 1 day of January, 202\6.
DAVID HITTNER
United States District Judge
7