Timothy Hays v. Chief Campos
13-15-00216-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 31, 2015Background
- In Feb. 2012 Yorktown police arrested Timothy Hays for possession of methamphetamine and heroin and seized his 2007 pickup and personal items; Hays was later convicted and sentenced to 14 years.
- The DeWitt County District Attorney (Sheppard) initiated civil forfeiture proceedings against the seized property; forfeiture judgment was entered for the State.
- On Feb. 17, 2015 Hays (pro se) sued Sheppard, Yorktown Chief Campos, and Sgt. Ernesto Garcia asserting: §1983 claims (Fifth, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendments), RICO, and state common-law claims (fraud, conspiracy, theft, conversion) arising from the seizure and forfeiture.
- Sheppard filed a plea to the jurisdiction asserting absolute prosecutorial immunity, sovereign immunity, and TTCA notice defense; Campos and Garcia filed a plea asserting statute of limitations, TTCA immunity/101.106(f), and Heck bar to §1983.
- The trial court granted each plea to the jurisdiction; Hays appealed challenging (1) denial of a bench-warrant to attend the hearing, (2) Sheppard’s absolute immunity, (3) Campos and Garcia’s entitlement to dismissal under TTCA §101.106(f) (and related immunity arguments), and (4) timeliness/statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of bench warrant to attend plea hearing | Denial denied Hays access to courts | Court had discretion; Hays provided no legal support | Waived for inadequate briefing; issue overruled |
| Whether Sheppard is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity | Sheppard wrongfully pursued forfeiture and failed to serve citation | Sheppard acted in initiating and prosecuting forfeiture as county prosecutor | Sheppard entitled to absolute immunity; plea sustained |
| Whether Campos & Garcia must be dismissed under TTCA §101.106(f) for common-law torts | Officers’ conduct was theft/conversion outside scope of employment | Officers acted within course/scope (law enforcement seizure authority); §101.106(f) requires dismissal of employee claims brought against employees in their official capacity | Court held claims arose in scope and could have been brought against government; dismissal under §101.106(f) proper |
| Jurisdiction over §1983 and RICO claims | Hays contended constitutional and RICO claims without detailed argument | Defendants argued jurisdictional bars (Heck, exclusive federal RICO jurisdiction); lack of pleaded illegal/unauthorized conduct | Court found RICO is federal-exclusive and §1983 claim barred/waived by Hays’ failure to brief; jurisdiction negated; no leave to replead |
Key Cases Cited
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (favorable termination rule limits §1983 damages for convictions)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976) (absolute prosecutorial immunity for core prosecutorial functions)
- Lesher v. Coyel, 435 S.W.3d 423 (Tex. App. 2014) (Texas application of prosecutorial immunity)
- Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standards for plea to the jurisdiction review)
- Tex. Adjutant Gen.'s Office v. Ngakoue, 408 S.W.3d 350 (Tex. 2013) (operation of TTCA §101.106(f) election-of-remedies dismissal)
- Franka v. Velasquez, 332 S.W.3d 367 (Tex. 2011) (scope of claims considered "against the government" under TTCA)
- Alexander v. Walker, 435 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. 2014) (officer acts in course and scope when performing law-enforcement duties)