Haule v. Travis County and Spinner, No. 03-19-00250-CV (Tex.App.–Austin May 28, 2020) (mem. op.).
[Special guest summary author Laura Mueller, City Attorney for Dripping Springs, Texas]
This case involves claims under §1983 and state law claims based on Haule’s attempt to report a crime to Travis County Officer Michael Spinner. The court of appeals held that the statute of limitations had run against all of Haule’s claims.
Haule attempted to file a criminal complaint against the Caldwell County District Attorney based on a previous prosecution. She called the Travis County Sheriff’s Office, claiming that the District Attorney had told her that he would put her in jail if she complained to the State Bar of Texas. The Sheriff’s Office sent Officer Spinner to take her statement. In his report, Officer Spinner referred to Haule as potentially mentally ill and intoxicated. After Haule complained about Officer Spinner’s report, the Sheriff’s Office responded to Haule’s complaint in a letter stating that: (1) her claim was not sustained; (2) that the Travis County Sheriff’s Office did not have authority over the Caldwell County District Attorney; and (3) that she should contact the Caldwell County Sheriff’s Office or the Attorney General’s Office. Seven years after receiving the letter from Travis County, Haule filed suit in Travis County District Court, alleging Section 1983 claims and general state law claims that appeared to include negligence, fraud, malicious prosecution, and defamation against Travis County and Officer Spinner. The County filed a motion for summary judgment that the claims were frivolous, and the district court granted the motion. Haule appealed.
The court of appeals reviewed all of the claims under each statute of limitations to determine whether any of the claims, even if substantiated, remained viable. The court first discussed Haule’s briefing and noted that it was unclear that Haule’s claims were able to be pursued. However, based on the information provided, the court reviewed the statute of limitations for §1983 claims, fraud, defamation, and others and determined that all of the statute of limitations had passed. Haule argued that the statute limitations should be tolled because: (1) the report stating that she was mentally ill and/or intoxicated was “ongoing” and (2) Officer Spinner’s license was suspended during the period in question. The court stated that the report was not ongoing and that even if Officer Spinner’s license had been suspended, it would not toll the statute of limitations. The district court’s judgment was affirmed.
If you would like to read this opinion, click here. The panel consists of Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Triana.