Gonzales v. Ciolli et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
FIDENCIO GONZALES,
#35175-510,
§
§
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. §
§
No. 3:26-cv-00052-E (BT)
KRISTI CIOLLI, et al., §
§
Defendants. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Fidencio Gonzales filed this pro se civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983, along with a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Now, for
the following reasons, the District Judge should DISMISS Plaintiff’s complaint.
Legal Standards
A district court may summarily dismiss a complaint filed IFP if it concludes
the action is: (1) frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim on which relief may
be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from
such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). To state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, a plaintiff must 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),
and must plead those facts with enough specificity “to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level[.]” Id. at 555. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff
pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
Case 3:26-cv-00052-E-BT Document 6 Filed 01/13/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

2
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
(2009). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, the
plaintiff must allege more than labels and conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Analysis
Plaintiff alleges that, on or about July 14, 2023, he “suffered a brutal assault
at the hands of” other inmates. Compl. at 9 (ECF No. 3). He states that Defendants
failed to “maintain[] a safe and secure environment,” refused to provide medical
treatment, then covered up the incident. Id. at 9–11. But these claims are barred
by the statute of limitations. Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim on
which relief may be granted. See Jones v. Alcoa, Inc., 339 F.3d 359, 368 (5th Cir.
2003) (affirming the judgment of the district court dismissing the plaintiffs’ action
for failure to state a claim because plaintiffs’ claim was barred by the applicable
statute of limitations).
A civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is governed by a two-
year statute of limitations. See Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 250 (1989) (stating
federal court should look to general personal injury limitations period of forum
state); Ali v. Higgs, 892 F.2d 438, 439 (5th Cir. 1990) (finding limitations period
in Texas is two years). Under federal law, a “cause of action accrues, so that the
statutory period begins to run, when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of
the injury which is the basis of the action.” Gonzales v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1020
(5th Cir. 1998).
Case 3:26-cv-00052-E-BT Document 6 Filed 01/13/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

3
Here, Plaintiff alleges that he was attacked on or about July 14, 2023. Compl.
at 9. Defendants’ refusal to provide medical care and purported cover up occurred
shortly thereafter. See id. at 9–11. But Plaintiff did not file his complaint until
January 9, 2026—nearly two-and-a-half years after the alleged assault. See id. at
14. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations and his
complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Jones, 339 F.3d at
368.
Recommendation
Accordingly, the District Judge should DISMISS Plaintiff’s complaint
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
SO RECOMMENDED.
January 13, 2026.
____________________________
REBECCA RUTHERFORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00052-E-BT Document 6 Filed 01/13/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

4
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in
the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and
recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being
served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). In order to be
specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to
which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in
the magistrate judge's report and recommendation where the disputed
determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or
refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file
specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual
findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted
by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United
Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
Case 3:26-cv-00052-E-BT Document 6 Filed 01/13/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>