United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
P. ELLISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a state inmate proceeding pro se and in forma
pauper is, filed this section 1983 civil complaint
seeking monetary damages and declarative relief against fifty
defendants on various constitutional and state law claims.
screened the complaint pursuant to sections 1915 and 1915A,
the Court DISMISSES this lawsuit for the
reasons explained below.
BACKGROUND AND CLAIMS
was charged with felony theft that occurred in 2011 in Harris
County, Texas. He pleaded guilty to the charges in August
2015 and was sentenced to twenty years' imprisonment.
instant lawsuit, plaintiff names as defendants fifty
individuals and entities located throughout multiple cities
and states. His claims allege various related and unrelated
acts by the defendants commencing as far back as 2011,
some of which took place during the investigation and
prosecution of the felony theft case. It appears on the face
of the pleadings that all of the claims brought by plaintiff
under section 1983 are barred by limitations. Nevertheless,
it is clear to the Court that the majority of plaintiff s
claims are state law claims against defendants who are not
state actors; these defendants cannot be held liable under
section 1983. Moreover, a number of the claims are against
state prosecutors and are barred by prosecutorial immunity.
Other claims arising from plaintiffs criminal prosecution and
conviction are currently barred by Heck v. Humphrey,
512 U.S. 477 (1994).
plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauper is and is a
prisoner who has sued a government entity or employee of a
government entity, his complaint is subject to sua
sponte dismissal if it is "frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted."
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1); see also 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). A complaint is frivolous
if it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.
Neitzhe v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989);
Brewster v. Drethe, 587 F.3d 764, 767 (5th Cir.
claims are subject to dismissal on one or more of the
U.S.C. § 1983 does not have its own statute of
limitations. With respect to claims brought pursuant to
section 1983, a federal court must borrow the forum
state's general personal injury limitations period.
See Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-50 (1989). In
Texas, the applicable period of limitations is two years.
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003. See
King-White v. Humble Indep. Sch. Dist., 803 F.3d 754,
759-61 (2015); Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 51
F.3d512, 515 n.5 (5th Cir. 1995). Thus, plaintiff s section
1983 claims are subject to a two-year statute of limitations.
the applicable limitations period is determined by state law,
the accrual of a cause of action is resolved by federal law.
Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007). The
limitations period commences when the aggrieved party has
either knowledge of the violation or notice of facts which,
in the exercise of due diligence, would have led to actual
knowledge of the violation. Newman v. Coffin, 464
Fed.Appx. 359, 362 (5th Cir. 2012). "The requisite
knowledge that a plaintiff must have to begin the running of
the limitations period is merely that of the facts forming
the basis of his cause of action, . .. not that of the
existence of the cause of action itself." Jensen v.
Snellings, 841 F.2d 600, 606 (5th Cir. 1988) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
instant case, plaintiff alleges that the events giving rise
to his claims under section 1983 occurred during the years
201 l through 2015, culminating in his August 2015 guilty
plea. Plaintiffs pleadings show that his claims accrued prior
to the entry of his guilty plea, and that limitations expired
two years thereafter, in August 2017. His pleadings further
show that he was aware of the facts giving rise to the claims
prior to his guilty plea in 2015. Plaintiff did not file this
lawsuit until August 26, 2019. As a result, plaintiffs
pleadings show that his section 1983 claims are barred by
limitations, and the claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT