Hilda Farias All, a/k/a Hilda Lisabeth Farias v. Alexa Pratt

Opinion

□ Southern District of Texas ENTERED March 18, 2026 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION HILDA FARIAS ALL, a/k/a § HILDA LISABETH FARIAS, § SPN # 01977077, § § Plaintiff, § § Vv. § Civil Action No. H-26-1517 § ALEXA PRATT, § § Defendant. § MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, a pretrial detainee confined in Harris County Jail, filed a pro se civil lawsuit against Alexa Pratt seeking $22 million in damages. She seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docket Entry No. 2.) This lawsuit is one of fourteen civil lawsuits pending in this Court filed by plaintiff over the past few weeks challenging her arrest, detention, criminal charges, prosecutions, adverse family law proceedings, and actions of her former spouse. Having considered the complaint, matters of public record, and the applicable law, the Court DISMISSES this lawsuit for the reasons shown below. I. BACKGROUND AND CLAIMS Plaintiff states that defendant Alexa Pratt is a Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (“DFPS”) caseworker. She complains that Pratt investigated allegations between her and her ex-spouse regarding their minor son, then testified in favor of her ex-

spouse at a protective order hearing.' Plaintiff asserts that because of Pratt’s investigation and testimony, she lost custody of her minor son. The Court’s review of the docket in Ali v. Ali, Cause No. 2020-26613 in the 280th District Court of Harris County, Texas, shows that on February 10, 2023, the state district court held a hearing on plaintiff’s ex-spouse’s motion to modify a “no contact” protective order involving their minor son. Following the hearing, the court modified the earlier 2020 protective order, vacated the “no contact” provisions, and entered an order to that effect on February 16, 2023. Contrary to plaintiff's assertion, the order did not adjudicate custody of the minor son. Plaintiff did not appeal the ruling. Plaintiff here seeks $22 million against Pratt in her official and individual capacities. Plaintiff claims that Pratt, due to her investigation and testimony, caused her to lose custody of the minor son and is liable for “child endangerment, negligence, civil rights violations, failure to protect child, discrimination, mishandling case, violation of civil rights, inadequate treatment and service.” (Docket Entry No. 1, p. 2.) Plaintiff pleads no factual allegations whatsoever supporting these conclusory claims. As noted above, plaintiff did not lose custody of the minor son at the protective order hearing.

‘Plaintiff also claims that Pratt intentionally scheduled her for a class that she knew plaintiff could not complete before the hearing. This claim against Pratt is currently pending before the Court in Ali v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, C.A. No. H-26-1084 (S.D. Tex.) (filed February 10, 2026), and will not be addressed in the instant lawsuit.

Il. ANALYSIS A. Official Capacity Claims The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that Texas child protective services employees are state employees entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Thomas v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective Servs., 427 Fed. App’x 309, 312 (Sth Cir. 2020). Thus, plaintiffs claims against Pratt in her official capacity as an employee of the DFPS are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. B. Individual Capacity Claims Plaintiff claims that Pratt, due to her investigation and testimony, is liable for her loss of custody and for “child endangerment, negligence, civil rights violations, failure to protect child, discrimination, mishandling case, violation of civil rights, inadequate treatment and service.” (Docket Entry No. 1, p. 2.) Plaintiff pleads no factual allegations supporting these conclusory claims, and the claims are subject to dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a viable claim for relief. However, the Court will dismiss with prejudice plaintiff's claims against Pratt in her individual capacity arising from Pratt’s investigation and testimony, as the claims are barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 16.003. For § 1983 claims, accrual of a claim under the two-year statute of limitations “occurs when the plaintiff knows, or should have known, of the facts that form the basis of

the claim.” Griffin v. New Orleans City, 628 F. App’x 300, 301 (Sth Cir. 2016). Pratt’s testimony made the basis of plaintiffs claims occurred on February 10, 2023, the date of the state court hearing. Any investigation of the case by Pratt would have taken place on or prior to that date. Consequently, plaintiffs claims against Pratt accrued on or before February 10, 2023, and expired two years thereafter. The instant lawsuit, filed by plaintiff on February 24, 2026, is untimely and is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as barred by limitations. Il. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. Plaintiffs claims against Alexa Pratt in her official capacity are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity. Des Plaintiffs claims against Alexa Pratt in her individual capacity are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as barred by limitations. 3. The initial pretrial and scheduling conference set for May 14, 2026, is CANCELLED. 4, Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 2) is DENIED. J This dismissal constitutes a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

Signed at Houston, Texas, on this the j / day of March, 2026.

Wen Dieta KEITH P. ELLISON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE