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.

Davis v. City of Grand Prairie

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

July 8, 2019

Londer B. Davis, Plaintiff,
v.
City of Grand Prairie, et al., Defendants.

          FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          RENEE HARRIS TOLIVER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this case was referred to the United States magistrate judge for case management, including findings and a recommended disposition. The Court granted Plaintiff Londer B. Davis' motion to proceed in forma pauperis but did not issue order that process issue pending the completion of judicial screening. Doc. 13. Upon review of the relevant pleadings and applicable law, this case should be summarily DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On November 5, 2018, Davis, proceeding without the assistance of counsel, initiated this action by filing a Complaint against the City of Grand Prairie, Chief of Police Dye, and Dallas County District Attorney Faith Johnson. Doc. 2 at 1. He avers in toto:

I was racially profiled, when on 3 Apr. 2k16 I witnessed roll-over, I report it to Police, but I went to Jail because of my race, I went to court for almost 1 ½ yrs. Grand Prairie Police never show. These Document that I'm sending is violation of American Disability Act. I suffer from “P.T.S.D.”

         Doc. 2 at 1 (emphasis and misspelling in original); see also Doc. 6 (77-page supplemental document).

         As best as the Court can glean from the Complaint, Davis asserts constitutional violations stemming from his arrest on April 3, 2016, after he witnessed a rollover accident. Doc. 2. He alleges racial profiling, false arrest and imprisonment, and violations of the American with Disability Act (ADA). Doc. 2 at 1. Davis also appears to claim malicious prosecution as a result of being charged with a misdemeanor offense-intentionally giving false information to a police officer-that was dismissed on July 10, 2018. Doc. 6 at 2-4; State v. Davis, No. M1630931 (Crim. Dist. Ct. No. 1, Dallas Cty., Tex., filed Apr. 4, 2016).[1]

         In his Answers to Magistrate Judge's Questionnaire, Davis avers: “I was bullied by police, held against my will on bogus charges, that's call[ed] kidnapping, they fail[ed] to get me mental health treatment!” Doc. 10 at 6. He further asserts that he (1) was “called a fugitive by the Police of Grand Prairie, ” (2) was incarcerated from April 3 to April 5, 2016, and (3) suffered from anxiety during the time he was jailed because he was unable to contact anyone, his truck was towed with his medicines inside, and he was denied medical attention. Doc. 10 at 2-5; Doc. 6 at 3. Davis also invokes the ADA, due to his purported mental health condition and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Doc. 10 at 4. He avers, “[i]f you are mentally ill and black, you already have two strikes against you, when you come into contact with ‘only white police.'” Doc. 10 at 4. Davis seeks “2.5 million dollars for each year from 3 Apr. 2016.” Doc. 10 at 6.

         II. ANALYSIS

         Because Davis is proceeding in forma pauperis, his complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute provides for the sua sponte dismissal of a complaint if the Court finds that it (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. A complaint is frivolous when it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). A complaint lacks an arguable basis in law when it is “based on an indisputably meritless legal theory.” Id. at 327. A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not 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).

         The Court must always liberally construe pleadings filed by pro se litigants. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (noting pro se pleadings “must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”); Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(e) (“Pleadings must be construed so as to do justice.”). Even under this most liberal construction, however, Davis fails to state a viable claim.

         A. Claims Accruing On or Before April 5, 2016 are Time Barred

         Davis maintains that he was racially profiled and unlawfully arrested on April 3, 2016, and that he was subsequently denied medical treatment for PTSD for approximately two days following his arrest. Based on these allegations, the latest Davis could have timely filed Section 1983 civil rights action was April 5, 2018.[2] See Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-50 (1989) (applying state forum's personal injury statute of limitations in a section 1983 case); Stanley v. Foster, 464 F.3d 565, 568 (5th Cir. 2006) (holding Texas Section 1983 actions are governed by the two-year personal injury limitations period); Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215, 237 (5th Cir. 2011) (same as to ADA action); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 16.003(a) (West 2019). However, Davis' complaint was filed November 5, 2018, well outside of the two-year limitations' period.

         Davis does not allege, much less demonstrate, that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the limitations' period due to a “legal disability.” SeeTex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. ' 16.001(a) (West 2019) (“a person is under a legal disability if the person is: (1) younger than 18 years of age, regardless of whether the person is married; or (2) of unsound mind.”). And his imprisonment does not provide a basis to toll the statute of limitations under Texas law. See Gonzales v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1020 (5th Cir. 1998). Accordingly, Davis' Complaint wholly fails to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face, thus, his civil rights claims should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Jones v. Bock,549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007) (holding that when “relief is barred by the ...


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.