Hicks v. Houston Police Department et al

IN THE 	UNITED STATES 	DISTRICT 	COURT
FOR THE 	SOUTHERN 	DISTRICT 	OF TEXAS
HOUSTON 	DIVISION
JAMES EDWARD HICKS, 	§
§
§
§
Plaintiff,
v.
HOUSTON POLICE 	DEP'T, 	et al.,
Defendants.
§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 	H-26-3802
§
§
§
§
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
James 	Edward 	Hicks 	filed 	a 	civil 	rights 	complaint 	against
the 	Houston 	Police 	Department 	and 	two 	Department 	employees.
Section 	1915A 	of 	title 	28 	of 	the 	United 	States 	Code 	requires 	a
federal 	district 	court 	to 	"review 	a 	complaint 	in 	a 	civil
action 	in 	which 	a 	prisoner 	seeks 	redress 	from 	a 	governmental
entity 	or 	officer 	or 	employee 	of 	a 	governmental 	entity." 	If 	the
complaint 	fails 	to 	state 	a 	valid 	claim for 	relief, 	the 	court must
dismiss 	the 	complaint.
Hicks 	contends 	that, 	on 	November 	8, 	2023, 	defendant 	Torres,
a 	Houston 	Police 	Department 	Officer, 	and 	an 	unnamed 	Department 	K9
handler, 	unreasonably 	seized 	him 	and 	his 	property 	and 	used
excessive 	force 	against 	him. 	Complaint 	(Docket 	Entry No. 	1) 	at 	8.
He 	filed 	this 	lawsuit 	on May 	8, 	2026. 	Id. 	at 	9.
Because 	there 	is 	no 	federal 	statute 	of 	limitations 	for 	civil
rights 	actions 	brought 	pursuant 	to 	42 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1983, 	a 	federal
court 	borrows 	the 	forum 	state's 	general 	personal 	injury
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
June 15, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-03802 Document 10 Filed 06/15/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

limitations 	period. 	Owens 	v. 	Okure, 	488 	U.S. 	235, 	249-50(1989);
Jackson 	v. 	Johnson, 	950 	F.2d 	263, 	265 	(5th 	Cir.1992). 	In 	Texas,
the 	applicable 	limitations 	period 	is 	two 	years. 	Gartrell 	v.
Gaylor, 	981 	F.2d 	254, 	256 	(5th 	Cir. 	1993). 	"A district 	court may
~ 	sponte 	dismiss 	a 	complaint 	as 	frivolous 	on
statute-of-limitations 	grounds 	where 	'it 	is 	clear 	from 	the 	face
of 	a 	complaint 	that 	the 	claims 	asserted 	are 	barred 	by 	the
applicable 	statute 	of 	limitations.'" 	Aguilar 	v, 	Abbott, 	172 	F.3d
868 	(5th 	Cir. 	1999) (quoting 	Moore 	v, 	McDonald, 	30 	F.3d 	616, 	620
(5th 	Cir.1994)).
As 	noted 	above, 	Hicks 	alleges 	that 	the 	incident 	giving 	rise
to 	this 	lawsuit 	occurred 	on 	November 	8, 	2023, 	but 	his 	Complaint
is 	dated 	May 	8, 	2026. 	Because 	Hicks 	suffered 	the 	alleged
violation 	of 	his 	rights 	on 	November 	8, 	2023, 	the 	limitations
period 	expired 	on 	November 	8, 	2025. 	Hicks 	signed 	his 	Complaint
six 	months 	after 	the 	limitations 	period 	expired. 	His 	claims 	are
thus 	barred by 	the 	statute 	of 	limitations, 	and 	the 	Complaint must
be 	dismissed.
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	the 	Complaint 	is 	DISMISSED 	WITH
PREJUDICE 	under 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1915A. 	This 	dismissal 	counts 	as 	a
strike 	for 	purposes 	of 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1915(g). 	Hicks's 	pending
2
Case 4:26-cv-03802 Document 10 Filed 06/15/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

motion 	to 	proceed 	in 	foma 	pauper is 	( Docket 	Entry 	No. 	8) 	is
DENIED AS MOOT.
The 	Clerk 	shall 	provide 	a 	copy 	of 	this 	Order 	to 	the
parties.
SIGNED 	at 	Houston, 	Texas, 	on 	this 	I~ 	day 	of 	June,
2026.
SIM LAKE
SENIOR UNITED STATES 	DISTRICT 	JUDGE
3
Case 4:26-cv-03802 Document 10 Filed 06/15/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3