Opinion
No. 3-04-CV-2065-L.
October 1, 2004
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This case has been referred to the United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference from the district court. The findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge are as follow:
I.
This is a pro se civil rights action brought by Plaintiff Henry M. Lewis, an inmate in the TDCJ-ID, against Dallas County, Texas. On September 23, 2004, plaintiff tendered a complaint to the district clerk and filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the information provided by plaintiff in his pauper's affidavit indicates that he lacks the funds necessary to prosecute this case, the court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and allowed the complaint to be filed. The court now determines that this case is frivolous and should be summarily dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
II.
Plaintiff alleges that he was "kidnapped and falsely arrested against my will" by an unnamed Dallas police officer on September 15, 2000. According to plaintiff, the officer kicked-in his door, pointed a gun at his face, and drove him to an unknown location. When he finally arrived at the police station, plaintiff states that "no one would answer my questions until an angry detective approached me with threats." By this suit, plaintiff seeks $7.5 million in compensatory damages.
A.
A district court may summarily dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it concludes that the action:
(1) is frivolous or malicious;
(2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or
(3) seeks money relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). An action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 1831-32, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); Henson-El v. Rogers, 923 F.2d 51, 53 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 2863 (1991). A complaint fails to state a claim "if it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations." Hishon v. King Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73, 104 S.Ct. 2229, 2232, 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984). The court must assume that the facts set forth in the complaint are true. See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 164, 113 S.Ct. 1160, 1161, 122 L.Ed.2d 517 (1993). However, dismissal is proper where "even the most sympathetic reading of [the] pleadings uncovers no theory and no facts that would subject the present defendants to liability." Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789, 791-92 (5th Cir. 1986).
B.
Assuming that plaintiff has alleged a federal civil rights violation, his claim is barred by limitations. See Ali v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 439 (5th Cir. 1990) (federal civil rights action under section 1983 governed by two-year statute of limitations). By his own admission, the events made the basis of this suit occurred on September 15, 2000. (Plf. Compl. at 2, ¶ V). However, plaintiff did not file suit until September 23, 2004 — more than four years later. It is clear from the face of the pleadings that this claim is time-barred. See Gartrell v. Gaylor, 981 F.2d 254, 256 (5th Cir. 1993) (court may summarily dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is "clear" that claims asserted are barred by limitations).
The court also notes that plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Dallas County, Texas, the only defendant named in his complaint. First, the police officers who arrested plaintiff were employed by the City of Dallas, not Dallas County. Second, a municipality may not be held vicariously liable for the actions of its employees. See Monell v. Department of Social Services of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2036, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).