Castro

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ROBERT CASTRO CIVIL ACTION

v. NO: 25-2342

PLAQUEMINES PARISH ET AL SECTION: C (2)

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the court are several motions to dismiss filed by defendants (R. Doc.

12, 15, 42, and 43). Finding plaintiff’s claims prescribed, the motions are

GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

Pro se plaintiff, Robert Castro, filed suit against defendants, Plaquemines

Parish, Gerald A. Turlich, Jr., Rodney King, Grant Solis, Michael Martin, Lt.

Matinez, Bret Ricks, and CJ Freeney (R. Doc. 1) on November 17, 2025, alleging

violations of 42 USC § 1983. The complaint states Castro was stopped by King and

other Plaquemines Parish deputies on February 24, 2024 for an invalid registration

tag. It alleges King “acted fascist and unbecoming of a peace officer, and used his

taser gun towards Plaintiff to threaten Plaintiff through Plaintiff’s open window and

pressed the taser gun towards him multiple times where Defendant King was

attempting to force Plaintiff out of his car for no valid reason.”1 According to the

complaint, these actions violated “State Police Training, Federal Police Training, and

the warnings on the taser box.”2 Plaintiff submits he was arrested for resisting arrest,

but “the charges were dropped in about June 2024.”3 Plaintiff’s amended complaint

(R. Doc. 27) states: “The amendments clarify and expand upon the factual

allegations regarding the alleged civil rights violations under 42 USC § 1983,

including details about the incident on February 24, 2024[.]”4

Defendants filed Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss (R. Doc. 12, 15, 42, and

43), and plaintiff responded. (R. Doc. 18 and 45).

ANALYSIS

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the sufficiency of a plaintiff’s allegations.

A complaint, or any part of it, may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if plaintiff fails to set forth factual allegations that would

entitle him to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Cuvillier

v. Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007).

To survive, a complaint must contain sufficient facts, accepted as true, to state

a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

1 R. Doc. 1, Page 6.

2 Id.

3 R. Doc. 1, Page 7.

4 R. Doc. 27, Page 2

(2009). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads the factual content

that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for

the misconduct alleged. Id. at 678. Determining whether a complaint states a

plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court

to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 679.

In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court should confine itself to the

pleadings and documents attached to the complaint. Kennedy v. Chase Manhattan

Bank USA, NA, 369 F.3d 833, 839 (5th Cir. 2004); Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean

Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 2000). The Court may consider documents

attached to a motion to dismiss or an opposition to that motion when the documents

are referred to in the pleadings and are central to a plaintiff’s claims. Carter v. Target

Corp, 541 Fed. Appx. 413, 416 (5th Cir. 2013). The court “may also consider matters

of which [it] may take judicial notice.” Hall v. Hodgkins, 305 F. App’x 224, 227

(5th Cir. 2008) (citing Lovelace v. Software Spectrum, Inc., 78 F.3d 1015, 1017-18

(5th Cir. 1996)).

While detailed factual allegations are not required, a complaint must offer

more than mere labels, legal conclusions, or formulaic recitations of the elements of

a cause of action. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The complaint is construed in the light most

favorable to plaintiff, accepting as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and

drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor. Lovick v. Ritemoney Ltd., 378

F.3d 433, 437 (5th Cir. 2004). However, the court will not accept “conclusory

allegations, unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions” as true. Ferrer v.

Chevron Corp., 484 F.3d 776, 780 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Plotkin v. IP Axess Inc.,

407 F.3d 690, 696 (5th Cir. 2005)). If factual allegations are insufficient to raise a

right to relief above the speculative level, the claim should be dismissed. Twombly,

550 U.S. at 555.

Defendants raise prescription because the complaint was filed more than one

year from the date of either plaintiff’s arrest or the dismissal of the charges. Since

42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not provide a statute of limitations, a forum state’s statute of

limitations for personal injury claims applies to §1983 claims. Owens v. Okure, 488

U.S. 235, 249-50 (1989). In Louisiana, that is one year. Brown v. Pouncy, 93 F.4th

331, 332 (5th Cir. 2024); La. Civ. Code art. 3492.

Plaintiff was arrested “on or about February 24, 2024” and the charges were

dismissed “in about June 2024.”5 Using either date, this lawsuit, filed on November

17, 2025, is prescribed. 6

5 R. Doc. 1, Page 5 and 7.

6 Acts 2024, No. 423, repealed Article 3492 and enacted Article 3493.1, which provides a two year

prescriptive period for Louisiana delictual actions. Plaintiff claims Article 3493.1 applies

retroactively. However, Act 423 restricts its application to actions arising after its effective date

which is July 1, 2024. Using either plaintiff’s arrest date (February 2024) or the dismissal date

(June 2024), his claims arose before July 1, 2024. Thus, the one year prescriptive period in former

Article 3492 applies.

Plaintiff attempts to explain his untimely filing stating:

The reason why the Complaint was filed on this date was because

Plaintiff was receiving delays of records up till January 2025 from

Defendants Martin and Johnson in proving that there was probable

cause for arresting Plaintiff for resisting arrest. Plaintiff also had

difficulty in finding civil rights lawyers that he was seeking to take his

case. Plaintiff spent over 2024-present trying to get Internal Affairs to

follow up on the paper work complaints about the below-alleged false

arrest. Plaintiff was prevented from filing due to the actions of the

Defendants, such as waiting or Internal Affairs to respond or the delay

in the dismissal of charges which occurred months later. Plaintiff was

diligently pursuing his rights and that the delay was due to

circumstances beyond my control.7

Even if plaintiff’s explanation can be interpreted as relying on the jurisprudentially

created doctrine of contra non valentum, that doctrine only prevents the running of

prescription in limited, exceptional circumstances, such as where the cause of action

is not known or reasonably knowable by the plaintiff, even though this ignorance is

not induced by the defendant. T.S. v. Congregation of Holy Cross Southern Province,

Inc., 22-1826 (La. 6/27/23), 366 So.3d 64, 70 (La. 6/27/23) Here, plaintiff sued one

year and five months after the criminal charges against him were dismissed, and

longer from the date of his arrest. He submits he was delayed while waiting for

records and looking for a lawyer. Those circumstances are not exceptional. Renfroe

7 R. Doc. 27, Page 5 and 6.

v. State ex rel. Dept. of Transp. and Development, 01-1646 (La. 2/26/02), 809 So.2d

947, 953.

CONCLUSION

This complaint is prescribed on its face. Plaintiff asserts no legitimate

argument for suspension of prescription. Defendants’ motions are GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s clams are DISMISSED, with prejudice.

New Orleans, Louisiana this 27th day of May 2026

WILLIAM J. CRAIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE