Opinion ID: 3068680
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Qualified Immunity and Due Process Claims

Text: In his first amended complaint, Smith contends that the defendants deprived him of his (1) property interest in his reputation; (2) his liberty interest in free speech and freedom of the press;9 and (3) liberty and property interest in his employment. The district court, however, dismissed Smith’s claims because Smith failed to establish a violation of his due process rights, some or all of Smith’s claims were time barred by the statute of limitations, and the evidence established that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. 9 On appeal, Smith fails to challenge the district courts holding with respect to this issue. Therefore, we do not address this issue here. 11 Case: 10-51236 Document: 00511866524 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/24/2012 No. 10-51236 Initially, it should be noted that Smith’s brief to this court fails to specifically argue that the district court erred when it determined Smith was not deprived of his liberty or property interest. Instead, Smith makes the conclusory statement that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they acted without the authority of law.10 The only factual evidence Smith seems to rely on comes from his reply to the defendants’ response to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. In his reply, Smith states that Cronig drafted the 2005 memorandum containing the money laundering and criminal conspiracy charges but made no effort to support those charges with any evidence. Smith claims that Cronig then drafted the 2008 memorandum and inserted the 2005 money laundering and criminal conspiracy charges without further investigating the truth of those charges. Finally, Smith asserts that when Acevedo and Cronig published the 2008 memorandum they violated his due process rights because neither of them knew of any evidence to support the 2005 money laundering and criminal conspiracy charges. Here, it is apparent that Smith is trying to challenge the authenticity of the 2005 money laundering and criminal conspiracy charges by claiming that the defendants, in 2008, did not have any evidence to support their allegations that Smith committed the 2005 offenses. However, to the extent that Smith alleges due process violations that occurred in 2005, his claims are time barred. Because § 1983 does not have a designated statute of limitations, the forum state’s general tort statute of limitations applies; in Texas, this statute of limitations period is two years. Price v. City of San Antonio, Tex., 431 F.3d 890, 892 (Tex. 2005). Smith signed the 2005 memorandum on April 20, 2005; 10 Smith attempts to make an ultra vires claim against defendants, but again cites only to case law and concludes, without more, that defendants acted without authority of law and are therefore not entitled to qualified immunity. 12 Case: 10-51236 Document: 00511866524 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/24/2012 No. 10-51236 he brought this suit on August 14, 2009. Therefore, any claims stemming from the process he received in 2005 are time barred.