Unreported / Non-Citable
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 his arms and legs, an officer crushed his throat with a foot, and another officer shot him for a second time. Reyna alleged that he subsequently could not swallow 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 officers Jimmy Cornelius and C. J. Gover, Commissioner Joel Kelton, and Brown County Judge Bryan Thompson. The defendants moved to dismiss under 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 filings failed to address the limitations issue.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The court found no error in the district court’s conclusion that Reyna’s claims arising from the March 2021 arrest were barred by Texas’s two-year statute of limitations applicable to Section 1983 claims.
Reyna’s appellate briefing offered additional descriptions of the police encounter and raised new constitutional theories, including an Emoluments Clause claim. The court declined to consider evidence or arguments that had not been presented to the district court. It also emphasized that Reyna identified no error in the district court’s dispositive limitations analysis and concluded that the record revealed none.
Key Takeaways
- Texas’s two-year personal-injury limitations period governed Reyna’s Section 1983 claims.
- A complaint filed in July 2025 based on an alleged March 2021 arrest was time-barred.
- The Fifth Circuit would not consider new evidence or constitutional theories first presented on appeal.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision underscores that Section 1983 plaintiffs must file within the applicable state personal-injury limitations period and must directly confront a limitations defense in the district court. It also reinforces the rule that litigants generally cannot preserve a deficient case by introducing new facts or legal theories for the first time on appeal.