govinfo:USCOURTS-laed-2_25-cv-02342-1

1 
 
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, t he 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 

2 
 
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 

3 
 
(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 (5 th Cir. 2004); Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean 
Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 4 98 (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 

4 
 
F.3d 433, 437 (5 th 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 (5 th 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. 

5 
 
 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 prev ented from filing due to the actions o f 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. 

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 claims are DISMISSED, with prejudice. 
New Orleans, Louisiana this _____ day of May 2026 
 
 
 
 
__________________________________ 
 WILLIAM J. CRAIN 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
 

Passage view · GavelSight