United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-40441

Summary Calendar

____________

Save R Hood, Incorporated, 

Plaintiff—Appellant, 

versus

Galveston County; City of Galveston; Mark Henry; 

Henry Trochesset; Cheryl E. Johnson; Craig Brown; 

Brian Maxwell, 

Defendants—Appellees. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:22-CV-264

______________________________

Before Clement, Elrod, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

This suit involves real property—namely, Lot 11 on block 387 in the 

City of Galveston, which is owned by a nonprofit corporation, Save R Hood, 

Inc. In 2008, the County of Galveston and the City of Galveston (collectively 

“Galveston”) sued Save R Hood in state court to recover delinquent 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 13, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-40441 Document: 55-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/13/2024
No. 23-40441

2 

property taxes on Lot 11. In 2009, the state court rendered judgment for 

Galveston, granting it the right to seize and sell Lot 11. Galveston issued an 

order of sale and, in January 2010, timely held a public auction for Lot 11. The 

auction yielded no bids, however, so, by operation of law, the City of 

Galveston took control of Lot 11. In December 2010, Save R Hood exercised 

its statutory right of redemption, tendering sufficient funds to the Galveston 

County Tax Office to pay off its tax debt and reclaim the property. The 

County Tax Office issued a certificate of redemption and delivered the 

certificate to Save R Hood. 

However, Galveston County failed to record Lot 11’s official deed, 

which reflected Save R Hood as the rightful owner, until ten years later, on 

July 22, 2020. In the interim, the City of Galveston erroneously retained 

record title to Lot 11 and, on June 2, 2015, offered the property for public 

auction, selling it to 2013 Place, LLC for $8,500. Once Save R Hood’s 2010 

redemption came to light, 2013 Place agreed to relinquish any claim to the 

property in exchange for return of its payment, and Galveston petitioned to 

vacate the sale. The state court granted the petition and ordered that title to 

Lot 11 be “restored in the former record title owners,” Save R Hood.

In July 2022, Save R Hood sued Galveston in federal court, bringing 

federal constitutional claims (takings and due-process) pursuant to Section 

1983, and later amending the complaint to include Texas constitutional 

claims similar to the federal claims. The district court granted Galveston’s 

motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). First, the court 

reasoned that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve Save R Hood’s claims as to 

Galveston’s pre-redemption conduct (seizing and selling Lot 11 for purposes 

of tax collection) because of the Tax Injunction Act (TIA). Specifically, the 

TIA withholds federal jurisdiction where a remedy may be had in state court 

to the state’s or municipality’s tax-collection practices, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, 

which include a sheriff’s sale of foreclosed properties to collect delinquent 

Case: 23-40441 Document: 55-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/13/2024
No. 23-40441

3 

taxes, Hammonds v. Dallas Cnty., 815 F. App’x 787, 787–88 (5th Cir. 2020). 

Second, the district court held that Save R Hood’s claims as to Galveston’s 

post-redemption conduct (Galveston’s continuing to possess the property, 

and selling the property to 2013 Place, despite Save R Hood’s redemption) 

were barred by the relevant statute of limitations—two years, under Texas 

law, for Section 1983 suits.1 Save R Hood does not appeal the district court’s 

judgment concerning the Tax Injunction Act—only the court’s dismissal of 

the claims related to Galveston’s post-redemption conduct.

As the district court correctly held, the limitations period under Texas 

law for Section 1983 claims for takings is two years. Redburn v. City of Victoria, 

898 F.3d 486, 496 (5th Cir. 2018). Here, Save R Hood admits to having had 

constructive notice of Galveston’s wrongful possession of Lot 11 since June 

2015, when Galveston sold the property to 2013 Place. Save R Hood filed suit 

in July 2022, however—more than five years after the limitations period 

elapsed. Thus, Save R Hood’s Section 1983 claims are untimely. Finally, the 

district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over 

Save R Hood’s only remaining claims—its state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1367(c)(3). 

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM.

_____________________

1 The district court’s opinion did not reach the merits of Save R Hood’s claims and 

does not prevent Save R Hood from seeking relief in state court.

Case: 23-40441 Document: 55-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/13/2024