Zahorik v. Trott et al

Filing 123

OPINION AND ORDER denying 113 Motion to Reopen the case against the Tennessee Defendants.(Signed by Magistrate Judge John R Froeschner) Parties notified.(sanderson, 3)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

November 20, 2015
David J. Bradley, Clerk

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
VINCENT ZAHORIK
V.
TRACY TROTT, ET AL.

§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. G-13-248

OPINION AND ORDER
On September 9, 2015, Plaintiff, Vincent Zahorik, filed a Motion to Reopen this
action following his acquittal in the case that imposed a Heck v. Humphrey bar. The
Tennessee Defendants oppose the Motion insofar as it applies to Zazhorik’s claims asserted
against them. Having reviewed the Parties’ submissions, the Court issues this brief
Opinion and Order.
In an Opinion and Order dated April 15, 2014, this Court granted the Tennessee
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Court’s dismissal
was not based on the Heck bar, but on the lack of personal jurisdiction over the Tennessee
Defendants. Right or wrong, that dismissal became final after not being timely appealed.
Admittedly, in its Opinion and Order the Court noted that the only claim potentially
assertable against any Tennessee Defendants in the Galveston Division was Zahorik’s
conspiracy claim. Zahorik alleged that “residents of both Tennessee and Texas . . .
conspired to unlawfully access and then cover up unlawful action” related to his federally
protected confidential information. That claim was, at the time of the Opinion and Order,

barred by Heck. The Heck bar has now been removed, but the evidence which led to the
reversal of Zahorik’s conviction1 precludes the assertion of any cognizable conspiracy
claim. During his trial testimony, the relevant Tennessee Defendant, Captain Donoho,
admitted the credit report was determined to have been obtained improperly after the
completion of an internal investigation. The Galveston criminal complaint against Zahorik
was filed on February 2, 2012, and the investigation sustaining Zahorik’s grievance was
completed in Tennessee on March 14, 2012. As a result, there could not have been a
conspiracy to file a false complaint and there was certainly no cover-up of the improper
credit check as alleged by Zahorik.
All of the other acts alleged against the Tennessee Defendants occurred in
Tennessee; there were no contacts with Texas to support personal jurisdiction.
It is, therefore, ORDERED that Zahorik’s Motion to Reopen (Instrument no. 113)
his case against the Tennessee Defendants is DENIED.
DONE at Galveston, Texas, this

20th

day of November, 2015.

The relevant evidence, contained in the opinion of the Texas appellate court, was
submitted by Zahorik as an exhibit to the instant motion.
1

2