1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

ROBERT J. ESQUIVEL,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

DAVID KENDRICK, BADGE #0567, 

PATROL DIVISION, SAN ANTONIO 

POLICE DEPARTMENT; TROOPER 

FNU EASTBURN, #14720, TEXAS 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; 

TROOPER FNU BIBBY, #14593, TEXAS 

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; 

TROOPER FNU WINDGATE, #13157, 

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC 

SAFETY; SAN ANTONIO POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, TEXAS HIGHWAY 

PATROL DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC 

SAFETY,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

SA-20-CV-00377-OLG

ORDER

Before the Court is the above-styled cause of action, which was automatically referred to 

the undersigned upon filing for an order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and 

for a review for frivolousness prior to permitting service of Plaintiff’s Complaint on Defendants. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The undersigned granted Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis but ordered Plaintiff to file a more definite statement clarifying the factual allegations 

underlying this suit. Plaintiff filed his More Definite Statement on May 12, 2020 [#7]. Reading 

Plaintiff’s Complaint and More Definite Statement together, the undersigned finds Plaintiff has 

alleged at least one nonfrivolous claim warranting service of his Complaint on Defendants. 

Plaintiff’s Complaint names the San Antonio Police Department, the Texas Highway 

Patrol Department of Public Safety, and various officers of these departments as Defendants. 

Case 5:20-cv-00377-OLG Document 8 Filed 05/25/20 Page 1 of 3
2

Plaintiff alleges that these individuals subjected him to an unlawful arrest and illegal search and 

seizure on April 29, 2018 following a purported traffic stop. Plaintiff advances various 

constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 related to his rights to free speech, due process, and 

equal protection, and the right to be free from excessive force, unlawful search and seizure, and 

cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff complains of being wrongfully detained for ten months 

in the Bexar County Jail on a charge of evading arrest, which was ultimately dismissed on March 

18, 2019. His More Definite Statement also references additional claims of defamation, slander, 

and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 

At least some of Plaintiff’s claims appear to be timely under the governing statute of 

limitations. The statute of limitations governing claims arising under Section 1983 is two years. 

Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 240–41 (1989) (explaining that federal courts apply state’s 

personal-injury limitations period to govern claims under Section 1983); Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. 

Code § 16.003(a) (establishing two-year limitations period for personal-injury actions). Plaintiff 

filed this lawsuit on March 24, 2020, within two years of his arrest and detention. 

Although some of Plaintiff’s claims under Section 1983, such as his free speech claim, 

are wholly unsupported by the facts alleged in his pleadings, Plaintiff alleges potentially 

cognizable claims that he was subjected to an unlawful search, seizure, and arrest and wrongfully 

detained as a result of malicious prosecution. Under Texas law, a cause of action for malicious 

prosecution accrues when the criminal prosecution ends, i.e., when criminal proceedings against 

the accused are terminated. Torres v. GSC Enterprises, Inc., 242 S.W.3d 553, 561 (Tex. App.—

El Paso 2007, no pet.); Patrick v. Howard, 904 S.W.2d 941, 943 (Tex. App.—Austin 1995, no 

writ). The Fifth Circuit has applied the same accrual analysis to malicious prosecution claims 

arising under Section 1983. See Eugene v. Alief I.S.D., 65 F.3d 1299, 1306 (5th Cir. 1995). 

Case 5:20-cv-00377-OLG Document 8 Filed 05/25/20 Page 2 of 3
3

Plaintiff alleges that the criminal charges against him were dismissed on March 18, 2019. 

Although a Texas claim of malicious prosecution, which is subject to a one-year limitations 

period, would likely be time barred, a claim for malicious prosecution under Section 1983 would 

not be. Because at least some of Plaintiff’s claims are not time barred and Plaintiff alleges facts 

to support some of his constitutional claims, the Court will order that Plaintiff’s Complaint be 

served on the named Defendants in this lawsuit. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, if not already accomplished, within ten (10) days

of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall submit to the Clerk’s Office a fully completed United

States Marshal Service Form 285, including fully complete addresses, for each Defendant

required to be served and the United States Marshal’s Service shall serve each Defendant with a

copy of the Complaint and a copy of this order by certified mail, return receipt requested.

SIGNED this 25th day of May, 2020.

ELIZABETH S. ("BETSY") CHESTNEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:20-cv-00377-OLG Document 8 Filed 05/25/20 Page 3 of 3