ADAM ELLERY HORWITZ v. CITY OF DENTON (2026)

ORDER

In April 2026, the court stayed this case pending resolution of plaintiff Adam Horwitz's state-court criminal proceedings. Dkt. 23. Yesterday, Horwitz filed an “emergency” motion asking the court to partially lift the stay to extend his deadline to serve the defendants and for discovery of some defendants' residential addresses, Dkt. 31, and an “emergency” motion for leave to file the first motion during the stay, Dkt. 30. He asserts that, absent the relief he seeks, the limitations period applicable to his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims will expire before he can properly serve all of the defendants. Dkt. 31 at 2–3. He urges the court to immediately rule on his motions because the defendants' response deadline would fall after his service deadline. Id. at 3.

Neither motion presents a true emergency. State-law limitations periods apply in § 1983 actions, Coomer v. Roth, No. 23-10845, 2024 WL 4100497, at *2 (5th Cir. Sept. 6, 2024), and “Texas tolls the running of the limitations period when a person is prevented from exercising a legal remedy by the pendency of legal proceedings.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Here, the stay prevents Horwitz from exercising a legal remedy, effectively tolling the limitations period. See Bunton v. LogistiCare Sols., LLC, No. A-19-CV-00372-LY-SH, 2020 WL 6491672, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 3, 2020) (noting that the court stayed the case and tolled the statute of limitations), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:19-CV-372-LY, 2020 WL 7422242 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2020); Wells Fargo Bank Tex., N.A. v. Foulston Siefkin LLP, 348 F. Supp. 2d 772, 784 (N.D. Tex. 2004) (finding that, when a case was stayed pending a decision in another lawsuit, “the statute of limitations was tolled until after the stay was lifted”), vacated on other grounds, Foulston Siefkin LLP v. Wells Fargo Bank of Tex. N.A., 465 F.3d 211 (5th Cir. 2006).

Because the court could later extend Horwitz's service deadline if warranted, it will take no action during the stay on either of his “emergency” motions, Dkts. 30, 31. It will instead consider the motions in the ordinary course and after the parties file their notices informing the court of the resolution of Horwitz's state-court proceedings. See Dkt. 23.

So ORDER and SIGNED this 29th day of May, 2026.

Bill Davis United States Magistrate Judge