Morrill v Denton, Texas City of
Filing
66
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE - GRANTING as to the statute of limitations arguments raised therein 42 Motion to Dismiss filed by Ronny Crain, Christopher Murphy, Donnie Dale Carr, GRANTING as to the statute of limitations arguments raised therein 23 Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Stay filed by Ronny Crain, Christopher Murphy, Donnie Dale Carr, GRANTING as to the statute of limitations arguments 22 Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Sta y, Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, Motion for More Definite Statement, Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction, filed by Craig Fitzgerald, GRANTING as to the statute of limitations 50 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Denton Texas City of, G RANTING - 28 Motion to Dismiss Supplemental Tort Claims Against Individual Defendant, DENYING AS MOOT 45 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Craig Fitzgerald DENYING AS MOOT 47 Motion for Summary Judgment, filed by Donnie Dale Carr, DENYING AS MOOT 49 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Ronny Crain, DENYING AS MOOT 48 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Christopher Murphy.. Signed by Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III on 8/25/2016. (baf, )
United States District Court
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
CHRISTIAN MORRILL
Plaintiff,
VS.
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, et al.
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Case No. 4:14CV749
Judge Mazzant/Judge Bush
MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Came on for consideration the reports of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action,
this matter having been heretofore referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636.
On July 15, 2016, the report of the Magistrate Judge was entered containing proposed
findings of fact and recommendations that Defendant City of Denton’s Motion to Dismiss
Supplemental Tort Claims Against Individual Defendants (Dkt. #28) should be GRANTED and that
Plaintiff’s assault and battery claims against the Individual Officer Defendants named in this case
should be dismissed with prejudice (see Dkt. #55).
Also on July 15, 2016, the Magistrate Judge entered another report containing proposed
findings of fact and recommendations that Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants are barred by the
statute of limitations and that Defendant Craig Fitzgerald’s Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12,
Alternative Motions for Rule 7 Reply and for Stay of All Discovery and Other Relief (Dkt. #22),
1
Defendant Donnie Carr’s, Christopher Murphy’s and Ronnie Crain’s Motion and Corrected Motion
to Dismiss Under Rule 12, Alternative Motions for Rule 7 Reply and for Stay of All Discovery and
Other Relief (Dkts. ##23 & 42), and Defendant City of Denton, Texas’ First Motion for Summary
Judgment (Dkt. #50) should be GRANTED as to the statute of limitations arguments raised therein
(see Dkt. #56). The Magistrate Judge further recommended that Defendant Craig Fitzgerald’s First
Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #45), Defendant Donnie Carr’s First Motion for Summary
Judgment (Dkt. #47), Defendant Christopher Murphy’s First Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.
#48), Defendant Ronny Crain’s First Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #49), and all other
dismissal and summary judgment arguments raised by Defendants should be DENIED as MOOT and
that and this case should be dismissed with prejudice with all costs to be borne by the party incurring
same.
On July 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations (see
Dkt. #62). On August 10, 2016 Defendants filed their responses to those objections (see Dkts. ##64
& 65).
Primarily, the Court notes that Plaintiff has not objected to the Magistrate Judge’s report and
recommendation that Defendant City of Denton’s Motion to Dismiss Supplemental Tort Claims
Against Individual Defendants (Dkt. #28) should be GRANTED and that Plaintiff’s assault and
battery claims against the Individual Officer Defendants should be dismissed with prejudice.
Having received that report and no objections thereto having been timely filed, this Court is
therefore of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and
adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations as the findings and conclusions of the Court.
2
Therefore, Defendant City of Denton’s Motion to Dismiss Supplemental Tort Claims Against
Individual Defendants (Dkt. #28) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s assault and battery claims against
the Individual Officer Defendants, Donnie Carr, Christopher Murphy, Craig Fitzgerald and Ronny
Crain, are dismissed with prejudice.
As to the recommendation that Plaintiff’s remaining claims against all Defendants are barred
by the statute of limitations, the Court has made a de novo review of the objections raised by Plaintiff
and Defendants’ responses. As set forth below, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and
conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and that the objections are without merit as to the
ultimate findings of the Magistrate Judge.
In his objections, Plaintiff claims that the Magistrate Judge erred as a matter of law in
finding that Plaintiff filed his federal claims outside of the two year statute of limitations. Plaintiff
concedes that he was arrested in August 2012 and that he did not file suit until more than two years
later in November 2014. Plaintiff nonetheless argues that his claims did not accrue until the
dismissal of the criminal charge against him.
Plaintiff specifically argues in his objections that the Magistrate Judge did not cite to any
governing authority “addressing Plaintiff’s scenario.” Dkt. #63 at 2. Plaintiff argues that, in finding
that his claims accrued on the date of his arrest, the Magistrate Judge erroneously relied on cases
pertaining to claims of false arrest and Fourth Amendment search and seizure violations. According
to Plaintiff, his claims in this suit are more analogous to claims of fraudulent concealment, which
toll the statute of limitations, or malicious prosecution, which do not accrue until the criminal case
is terminated.
3
The Court is not convinced by Plaintiff’s arguments. The Magistrate Judge considered the
arguments raised by Plaintiff in his objections but nonetheless found that Plaintiff became aware of
any denial of due process, unwarranted or excessive force, or failure to intervene (to the extent such
allegation could state a violation of Section 1983) at the time of Plaintiff’s arrest in August 2012.
As noted by Defendants in response to Plaintiff’s objections, Plaintiff has not cited to any case
holding that the accrual of claims such as his is delayed by a pending prosecution for resisting arrest.
And, as thoroughly addressed by Defendants in response to Plaintiff’s objections, the cases cited by
Plaintiff in support of his objections are clearly distinguishable.
The Magistrate Judge’s analysis is detailed and supported by authority, and the Court agrees
with the Magistrate Judge that “[t]he existence of the various claimed injuries here did not depend
on the outcome of the subsequent criminal proceedings.” Humphreys v. City of Ganado, Tex., 467
F. App’x 252, 255 (5th Cir. 2012). The Court finds no error in the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion
that, as a matter of law, the limitations period expired in August 2014, two years after the date of his
arrest. See id.; Hitt v. Connell, 301 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2002) (stating that limitation period
begins to run “when the plaintiff ‘becomes aware that he has suffered an injury or has sufficient
information to know that he has been injured’”); Paselk v. State, 2013 WL 4791417, at *14 (E.D.
Tex. 2013) ( “The cause of action accrued when Plaintiff knew or had reason to know of the injury
that is the basis of the action.”).
Having reviewed the record herein and finding that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit,
the Court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and
conclusions of this Court. Plaintiff’s remaining claims against Defendants are barred by the statute
4
of limitations.
Therefore, Defendant Craig Fitzgerald’s Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12, Alternative
Motions for Rule 7 Reply and for Stay of All Discovery and Other Relief (Dkt. #22), Defendant
Donnie Carr’s, Christopher Murphy’s and Ronnie Crain’s Motion and Corrected Motion to Dismiss
Under Rule 12, Alternative Motions for Rule 7 Reply and for Stay of All Discovery and Other Relief
(Dkts. ##23 & 42), and Defendant City of Denton, Texas’ First Motion for Summary Judgment
(Dkt.# 50) are GRANTED as to the statute of limitations arguments raised therein. Defendant Craig
Fitzgerald’s First Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #45), Defendant Donnie Carr’s First Motion
for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #47), Defendant Christopher Murphy’s First Motion for Summary
Judgment (Dkt. #48), Defendant Ronny Crain’s First Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. #49),
and all other dismissal and summary judgment arguments raised by Defendants are DENIED as
.
MOOT.
This case shall be dismissed with prejudice with all costs to be borne by the party incurring
same.
It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 25th day of August, 2016.
___________________________________
AMOS L. MAZZANT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?