Jones v. City of Grand Prairie

N.D. Texas

Jones v. City of Grand Prairie

DecidedFebruary 16, 2023

Docket3:22-cv-01489

StatusUnknown

This text of Jones v. City of Grand Prairie (Jones v. City of Grand Prairie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. City of Grand Prairie, (N.D. Tex. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

RONNEALL JONES, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 3:22-CV-1489-X-BT § CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE, et § al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. [Doc. No. 11]. Petitioner Ronneal Jones initiated this pro se action against the City of Grand Prairie, Texas and multiple City employees, alleging various civil rights violations stemming from his arrest at a 2018 Martin Luther King, Jr. Parade and his inability to run in a school board election due to his criminal record.1 The Magistrate Judge concluded that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because the two-year statute of limitations on Jones’s claims has expired.2 Thus, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

1 Doc. No. 11 at 1–3. 2 Id. at 5 (citing Stanley v. Foster, 464 F.3d 565, 568 (5th Cir. 2006)). Jones filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report, arguing that he was unable to fix his deficient complaint only because he “was falsely arrested on more charges” and asks the Court to allow him to “properly submit [his] suit once [he is] released” because it fails only for “a technical reason.”? Jones does not dispute the expired statute of limitations or provide any reason why it should be tolled, waived, or otherwise disregarded. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Jones’s objections. The District Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations for plain error. The Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. Because, as the Magistrate Judge correctly notes, Jones has already pleaded his “best case” and failed to state a claim,* the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Jones's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). IT ISSO ORDERED, this 16th day of February, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3 Doc. No. 12 at 1. 4 Doc. No. 11 at 6 (citing Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 766-68 (5th Cir. 2009)).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

RONNEALL JONES, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Case No. 3:22-CV-1489-X-BT § CITY OF GRAND PRAIRIE, et § al., § § Defendants. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. [Doc. No. 11]. Petitioner Ronneal Jones initiated this pro se action against the City of Grand Prairie, Texas and multiple City employees, alleging various civil rights violations stemming from his arrest at a 2018 Martin Luther King, Jr. Parade and his inability to run in a school board election due to his criminal record.1 The Magistrate Judge concluded that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because the two-year statute of limitations on Jones’s claims has expired.2 Thus, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

1 Doc. No. 11 at 1–3. 2 Id. at 5 (citing Stanley v. Foster, 464 F.3d 565, 568 (5th Cir. 2006)). Jones filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report, arguing that he was unable to fix his deficient complaint only because he “was falsely arrested on more charges” and asks the Court to allow him to “properly submit [his] suit once [he is] released” because it fails only for “a technical reason.”? Jones does not dispute the expired statute of limitations or provide any reason why it should be tolled, waived, or otherwise disregarded. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Jones’s objections. The District Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations for plain error. The Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. Because, as the Magistrate Judge correctly notes, Jones has already pleaded his “best case” and failed to state a claim,* the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Jones's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). IT ISSO ORDERED, this 16th day of February, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3 Doc. No. 12 at 1. 4 Doc. No. 11 at 6 (citing Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 766-68 (5th Cir. 2009)).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jones v. City of Grand Prairie, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-city-of-grand-prairie-txnd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack