Whitt v. Stephens County

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that any amendment to the complaint would be futile because the claims were time-barred
• explaining that the statute of limitations in a § 1983 action is determined by the state’s limitations period, which is two years in Texas
• finding that an officer who knew that a detainee might have a mental health issue was not deliberately indifferent because the other facts did not indicate a substantial risk of harm
• granting the plaintiff’s motion for leave to add new defendants “would have been futile because the statute of limitations barred actions against the [new] defendants”
• delay in amending complaint to name John Doe defendants caused by counsel’s incapacitating medical condition and hospitalization was insufficient for equitable tolling
• “[A]n inference of spoliation, in combination with some (not insubstantial) evidence for the plaintiff’s cause of action, can allow the plaintiff to survive summary judgment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).