United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
J. BOYLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
filed eight motions to dismiss Plaintiff's amended
complaint [Dkt. No. 50] under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), see Dkt. Nos. 61, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 89,
81, 96, 97, 99, & 107. One defendant's motion also
incorporates a motion to strike under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(f). See Dkt. No. 81 at 6-8.
extensive briefing, United States Magistrate Judge David L.
Horan entered findings of fact and conclusions of law [Dkt.
No. 152] recommending that the motions to dismiss be granted
without prejudice to Plaintiff's filing, within a
reasonable time that the Court sets, one final amended
complaint that cures all deficiencies noted in these
findings, conclusions, and recommendation. If Plaintiff
elects to file a second amended complaint, the Court should
require that, when he files that complaint, he also file a
separate motion for leave to continue to proceed anonymously
that demonstrates a privacy interest that outweighs the
customary and constitutionally embedded presumption of
openness in judicial proceedings. And the Court should deny
Defendant Roden's motion to strike under Rule 12(f).
Id. at 48.
timely objected on two grounds. See Dkt. No. 153. He
first argues that Judge Horan got it wrong as to when
Plaintiff's false imprisonment claim accrued. See
Id. at 7-14. And he further contends that Judge Horan
failed to specifically address each of Plaintiff's novel
theories concerning delayed accrual or tolling, theories that
Plaintiff first put forward through responses to the motions
to dismiss. See Id. at 14-28.
the first objection, Plaintiff “concedes” that
the Supreme Court precedent cited by Judge Horan “is
dispositive of [Plaintiff's] claim for false
imprisonment, ” but he then argues that the findings,
conclusions, and recommendation “misconstrued”
that precedent. Dkt. No. 153 at 8. The District Court has
reviewed Plaintiff's arguments and finds them
unpersuasive. The first objection is therefore
the second objection, given the number of pending motions and
the exhaustive briefing, Judge Horan did not go into exacting
detail as to each of Plaintiff's separate theories. But
there also was no need to.
Plaintiff attempted to show that these theories apply to his
claims through his responses to the motions to dismiss. As
Judge Horan correctly pointed out, those responses are not
pleadings and therefore do not amend Plaintiff's claims.
Factually-plausible allegations - made through a complaint -
are necessary to support any legal argument to delay the
accrual of a cause of action or show that the limitations
period should be tolled. See King-White v. Humble Indep.
Sch. Dist., 803 F.3d 754, 758 (5th Cir. 2015); Moon
v. City of El Paso, 906 F.3d 352, 358-59 (5th Cir.
Judge Horan exhaustively surveyed the legal standards
applicable to accrual and tolling. See Dkt. No. 152
at 11-18. And the findings, conclusions, and recommendation
correctly points out that the applicable landscape may not be
as broad as Plaintiff desires. See Id. at 20. But,
if Plaintiff still believes there are other theories of
delayed accrual or tolling not discussed in the findings,
conclusions, and recommendation - and that these theories are
properly supported by controlling case law - he should
present those theories to the Court through the facts to be
alleged in any second amended complaint he elects to file.
Accordingly, this objection is also
the District Court, having reviewed de novo those
portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation to which objection was made, and having
reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendation for plain error, and finding none,
ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [Dkt.
Court therefore GRANTS Defendants'
motions to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6)
[Dkt. Nos. 61, 74, 76, 77, 79, 81, 96, & 99] without
prejudice to Plaintiffs filing, within 14
days from entry of this order, one final
amended complaint that cures all deficiencies noted in the
findings, conclusions, and recommendation.
Plaintiff elects to file a second amended complaint, he must
file simultaneously with that complaint a separate motion for
leave to continue to proceed anonymously that demonstrates a
privacy interest that outweighs the customary and
constitutionally embedded presumption of openness in judicial
Court further DENIES Defendant Roden's
motion to strike under Rule ...