Marchant v. Amer Equity Ins Co, et al, No. 05-50946 (5th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 28, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 05-50946 Conference Calendar GLEN LEROY MARCHANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus AMERICAN EQUITY INSURANCE; RUIZ PROTECTIVE SERVICES; ROBERTO FRANCISCO MARTINEZ, Defendants-Appellees. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CV-52 -------------------Before DAVIS, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Glen Leroy Marchant, appearing pro se, appeals the district court s dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim and as time-barred pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). According to Marchant, he was wrongfully arrested and suffered physical and emotional injuries after security guards employed by Ruiz Protective Services falsely alerted the El Paso Police Department that he was carrying a gun at the El Paso Public Library. * His pleadings in the district court asserted various Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 05-50946 -2federal constitutional claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as state tort law claims arising out of this incident. He also alleged that the library s insurer, American Equity Insurance Company, unreasonably refused to settle his claim. We review the district court s dismissal de novo, taking the actual allegations of the complaint as true, and resolving any ambiguities or doubts regarding the sufficiency of the claim in favor of the plaintiff. Jones v. Alcoa, Inc., 339 F.3d 359, 362 (5th Cir. 2003). Marchant s claims, both under § 1983 and under state law, were required to be filed within the applicable two-year limitations period. See Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237 F.3d 567, 576 (5th Cir. 2001); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 16.003(a) (Vernon Supp. 2005). As Marchant filed his complaint more than two years after the incident that gave rise to his lawsuit, the district court properly dismissed his § 1983 and state tort claims as untimely. Thus, we need not reach the parties arguments regarding whether the private actors involved could have been acting under color of state law for purposes of § 1983. With respect to Marchant s claims against American Equity for its refusal to settle with him, Texas law does not recognize a cause of action by a third party for claims of unfair settlement practices. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Watson, 876 S.W.2d 145, 149 (Tex. 1994). Thus, Marchant failed to state a No. 05-50946 -3claim for which relief could be granted. We do not address Marchant s theories under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Education of the Handicapped Act, or the Public Health and Welfare Equal Opportunities Act, because Marchant did not assert them in the district court. See Priester v. Lowndes County, 354 F.3d 414, 424 (5th Cir. 2004). For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
