Court Opinion

ID: 9950269
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 18:00:29.531933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:18.660593
License: Public Domain

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

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit

                                   No. 23-40441
                                                                                   FILED
                                                                             March 13, 2024
                                 Summary Calendar
                                 ____________                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                   Clerk
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.
Case: 23-40441        Document: 55-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 03/13/2024

                                 No. 23-40441

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

                                       2
 Case: 23-40441         Document: 55-1          Page: 3      Date Filed: 03/13/2024

                                      No. 23-40441

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.

                                            3