Court Opinion

ID: 9410903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-25 00:00:49.464653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:00.804834
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-51113         Document: 00516831602               Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/24/2023

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

                                        No. 22-51113
                                                                                       FILED
                                                                                     July 24, 2023
                                      Summary Calendar
                                      ____________                                   Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
   Natin Paul; World Class Holding Company, L.L.C.;
   World Class Holdings Management, L.L.C.,

                                                                     Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                              versus

   Rani A. Sabban, Investigator, Texas State Securities Board, in his
   individual capacity; Preston Joy, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of
   Investigation, in his individual capacity,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Western District of Texas
                               USDC No. 1:21-CV-954
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Southwick, and Higginson, Circuit Judges.

   Per Curiam: *
         Natin Paul, World Class Holding Company L.L.C., and World Class
   Holdings Management, L.L.C. (“Appellants”) filed this civil-rights action
   against Rani A. Sabban, an investigator with the Texas State Securities the

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-51113      Document: 00516831602            Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/24/2023

                                      No. 22-51113

   Board, Preston Joy, a special agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
   and 100 unnamed state and federal officers (“Appellees”), alleging violations
   of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution
   arising from the search and seizure of Appellants’ properties on August 17,
   2019. Appellants brought these claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
   Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and 42 U.S.C. §
   1983. The district court granted Appellees’ motions to dismiss on statute-of-
   limitations grounds. We AFFIRM.
                                           I
          In a Bivens action, federal courts apply the forum state’s limitations
   period for personal injury claims. Spotts v. United States, 613 F.3d 559, 573
   (5th Cir. 2010); Brown v. Nationsbank Corp., 188 F.3d 579, 590 (5th Cir.
   1999). The same is true for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Piotrowski v. City
   of Houston, 51 F.3d 512, 514 n.5 (5th Cir. 1995).
          The statute of limitations governing personal injuries under Texas law
   is two years. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 16.003. Accordingly, the
   parties agree that the limitations period for Appellants’ claims is two years.
   Spotts, 613 F.3d at 573 (Bivens claims); Winfrey v. Rogers, 901 F.3d 483, 492
   (5th Cir. 2018) (§ 1983 claims).
          Here, Appellants claim that government officials allegedly conducted
   an unlawful warrantless search and seizure on August 17, 2019. Appellants
   did not file suit until October 21, 2021, however, which is two months after
   the two-year limitations period.
                                           II
          Appellants argue that their claims are nonetheless timely because they
   did not discover the full extent of their damages until October 21, 2019—
   precisely two years before the day they filed this lawsuit. As a result, they

                                           2
Case: 22-51113      Document: 00516831602           Page: 3    Date Filed: 07/24/2023

                                     No. 22-51113

   contend, the statute of limitations was tolled until that date. But our
   precedent forecloses tolling the statute of limitations in this case.
          “Although the Texas limitations period applies, federal law governs
   when a § 1983 claim accrues.” Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir.
   1994). The same goes for Bivens claims. Spotts, 613 F.3d at 574. “[U]nder
   federal law, a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason
   to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.” Moore, 30 F.3d at 620–
   21 (quoting Gartrell v. Gaylor, 981 F.2d 254, 257 (5th Cir. 1993)). “The
   limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff becomes aware that he has
   suffered an injury or has sufficient information to know that he has been
   injured.” Stringer v. Town of Jonesboro, 986 F.3d 502, 510 (5th Cir. 2021)
   (quoting Redburn v. City of Victoria, 898 F.3d 486, 496 (5th Cir. 2018));
   Moore, 30 F.3d at 621 (“The statute of limitations . . . begins to run when the
   plaintiff is in possession of the ‘critical facts that he has been hurt and who
   has inflicted the injury.’” (quoting Gartrell, 981 F.2d at 257)). Importantly,
   accrual at that time occurs “even though the full extent of the injury is not
   then known or predictable.” Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 391 (2007).
          Paul, an officer of the LLC Appellants, was present and detained while
   the allegedly unlawful searches and takings were conducted on Appellants’
   properties. As a result, Appellants “certainly possessed the ‘critical facts’
   concerning the allegedly unreasonable search . . . on the day it occurred.”
   Moore, 30 F.3d at 621. Appellants’ inability to predict the full extent of
   damages resulting from the search does not toll the limitations period. See
   Wallace, 549 U.S. at 391; Piotrowski, 51 F.3d at 516. Accordingly, the district
   court did not err in dismissing their claims on statute-of-limitations grounds.
          Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Appellants
   leave to amend their complaint. Appellants’ motion for leave to amend
   lacked any factual detail that would remedy deficiencies in their complaint,

                                           3
Case: 22-51113      Document: 00516831602           Page: 4   Date Filed: 07/24/2023

                                     No. 22-51113

   and they did not attach a proposed amended complaint setting forth any facts
   suggesting amendment would be anything other than futile. See Goldstein v.
   MCI WorldCom, 340 F.3d 238, 255 (5th Cir. 2003) (affirming denial of leave
   to amend where the plaintiff did not specify how a second amended
   complaint would differ and did not attach a proposed second amended
   complaint); McKinney v. Irving Indep. Sch. Dist., 309 F.3d 308, 315 (5th Cir.
   2002) (finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of leave to
   amend where the plaintiffs failed to file an amended complaint as a matter of
   right or submit a proposed amended complaint in a request for leave of the
   court and the plaintiffs failed to alert the court as to the substance of any
   proposed amendment).
          AFFIRMED.

                                          4