Hurt v. Hunt County, Texas, et al.

Summary

In this Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation, a United States magistrate judge recommends denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a surreply, granting the Hunt County defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and denying the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The recommendation concludes that the plaintiff’s ADA, Rehabilitation Act, constitutional, and Texas tort claims were time-barred under Texas’s two-year limitations period and that the plaintiff had not adequately established equitable tolling. It also concludes that the plaintiff had not shown an exceptional circumstance warranting federal intervention in ongoing New Mexico criminal proceedings under Younger abstention principles.

Holdings

1. Hurt's ADA, Rehabilitation Act, § 1983, and Texas tort claims were subject to Texas's two-year personal-injury limitations period, accrued in 2020, and were facially time-barred when filed in 2025.
2. Hurt did not plead facts sufficient to establish equitable tolling because his allegations of incompetency, medical impairment, continuing misconduct, and diligence were conclusory.
3. Hurt was not entitled to a TRO or preliminary injunction because he failed to unequivocally show entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief and did not establish an exceptional basis for federal intervention in the state criminal proceeding.
4. Leave to file a surreply should be denied because surreplies are discretionary and generally permitted only in exceptional circumstances, and the recommendation did not rely on new arguments or evidence in the defendants' reply.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Hurt's claims against the Hunt County defendants were facially barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations.
2. Whether Hurt's allegations established a basis for equitable tolling of the limitations period.
3. Whether Hurt should be granted leave to file a surreply.
4. Whether Hurt was entitled to a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction against the New Mexico defendants.
5. Whether Younger abstention barred federal injunctive intervention in the allegedly ongoing New Mexico criminal proceeding.

Disposition

other