Background
Effrin Reyna alleged that two Brown County, Texas, police officers used excessive force while arresting him on March 21, 2021. According to Reyna, officers restrained him, one officer crushed his throat with a foot, and C. J. Gover shot him a second time. Reyna alleged that he could not swallow afterward but received no medical treatment.
Reyna filed a Section 1983 action in the Northern District of Texas on July 14, 2025, seeking $10 million from Gover, former officer Jimmy Cornelius, Commissioner Joel Kelton, and Brown County Judge Bryan Thompson. The defendants moved to dismiss based on Texas’s two-year limitations period for personal-injury claims. A magistrate judge recommended dismissal as time-barred, and the district court adopted that recommendation and dismissed the action with prejudice after Reyna’s responses, objections, and amended complaint failed to address the limitations issue.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Reyna did not identify any error in the district court’s conclusion that his claims were barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations, and the appellate court found none.
The court also declined to consider new factual assertions and constitutional theories, including an Emoluments Clause claim, that Reyna had not presented to the district court. After reviewing the briefs, the district court’s opinion, and the pertinent record, the panel found no reversible error and affirmed essentially for the reasons given below.
Key Takeaways
- Texas’s two-year personal-injury limitations period applies to Section 1983 claims arising from alleged excessive force in Texas.
- A plaintiff who does not address the dispositive limitations defense risks dismissal with prejudice.
- The Fifth Circuit generally will not consider evidence or legal theories raised for the first time on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that potentially serious constitutional allegations do not excuse failure to file within the governing limitations period. Section 1983 litigants must assess and address timeliness at the outset, including any available basis for tolling.
It also reinforces the importance of preserving arguments in the district court. New facts and constitutional theories ordinarily cannot cure an adverse judgment when first presented on appeal.