Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Terry v. Supervisor and Detention Officers

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

April 23, 2018

KESHA TERRY, Plaintiff,
v.
SUPERVISOR and DETENTION OFFICERS, Defendants.

          FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          REBECCA RUTHERFORD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This 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:

         I.

         Before 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 be denied.

         On 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.

         On 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.

         On 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.

         II.

         A 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.

         III.

         Plaintiff's 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).

         Plaintiff states Defendants used excessive force against her on January 9 or 10, 2014.[1] (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.

         Additionally, 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.