United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
REBECCA RUTHERFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cause of action was referred to the United States Magistrate
Judge pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States
Code, § 636(b), as implemented by an order of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United
States Magistrate Judge follow:
the Court is Plaintiff's motion to reinstate this case,
(ECF No. 21), and Plaintiff's motion to add to this case.
(ECF No. 23.) For the following reasons, the motions should
January 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed this complaint under 42
U.S.C. §1983. She is proceeding pro se, and the Court
granted her leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
Defendants are a Jane Doe Dallas County Jail Supervisor, and
Jane Doe Dallas County detention officers.
February 22, 2017, the district court dismissed the complaint
for want of prosecution because Plaintiff failed to provide
the court with her current address. On February 28, 2017, the
district court vacated its judgment. On March 2, 2017, the
Magistrate Judge sent Plaintiff a Magistrate Judge's
Questionnaire seeking additional information regarding her
claims. On April 12, 2017, the Magistrate Judge entered
Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation that the
complaint be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to respond to
the Questionnaire. On May 3, 2017, the district court entered
final judgment dismissing this case for want of prosecution.
On May 2, 2017, Plaintiff filed her response to the
Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire.
October 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed her motion to reinstate
this case. On March 22, 2018, she filed her motion to add
additional facts to her complaint.
district court may summarily dismiss a complaint filed in
forma pauperis if it concludes the action is: (1)
frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2)(B). To state a claim upon which relief may
be granted, a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face[, ]
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007), and must plead those facts with enough specificity
“to raise a right to relief above the speculative level
. . . .” Id. at 555. “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937,
1949 (2009). While a complaint need not contain detailed
factual allegations, the plaintiff must allege more than
labels and conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
motion to reinstate this case should be denied because her
claims are barred by the statute of limitations. A civil
rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is governed by a
two-year statute of limitations. See Owens v. Okure,
488 U.S. 235, 250 (1989) (stating federal court should look
to general personal injury limitations period of forum
state); Ali v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 439 (5th Cir.
1990) (finding limitations period in Texas is two years).
Under federal law, a “cause of action accrues, so that
the statutory period begins to run, when the plaintiff knows
or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the
action.” Gonzales v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016,
1020 (5th Cir. 1998).
states Defendants used excessive force against her on January
9 or 10, 2014. (ECF No. 17 at 8.) Plaintiff knew, or had
reason to know, of her injury at that time. She did not file
her complaint until January 3, 2017, which was approximately
one year after the limitations period expired. She has also
failed to state any basis for equitable tolling of the
limitations period. Her claims are therefore barred by the
statute of limitations.
Plaintiff has failed to state a cognizable claim for relief.
In response to the Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire,
Plaintiff states she is “asking for Justice.”
(ECF No. 17 at 10.) Plaintiff fails to explain what she ...