Background
Daryl Davis, proceeding pro se, sued Tyler city and Smith County officials under Section nineteen hundred and eighty-three of Title forty-two of the United States Code following a traffic stop in February of two thousand and nineteen. Officers accused Davis of swallowing crack cocaine, arrested him for tampering with evidence, and he later pleaded nolo contendere to interfering with public duties. Davis alleged excessive force, unlawful detention, malicious prosecution, and that officials ignored his complaints about unconstitutional policing. The district court dismissed his claims, ruling that most were time-barred or failed to state a claim.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that unlawful arrest and excessive force claims accrued at the moment of arrest and were barred by the two-year statute of limitations. Regarding malicious prosecution, the court found that a nolo contendere plea is not a favorable termination of proceedings, and probable cause existed for the charge to which Davis pleaded. The court declined to address a new evidence fabrication theory or post-indictment search and seizure claims because they were not raised in the district court. Finally, the court agreed that claims against officials for failure to act were conclusory but reversed the dismissal with prejudice, noting the plaintiff had not pleaded his best case.
We AFFIRM in part, VACATE in part, and REMAND for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Davis v. Warren, 24-40599 (5th Cir. Apr. 21, 2026)
What it means going forward
The plaintiff may file an amended complaint to pursue claims against city officials for failure to act, but time-barred claims regarding arrest and force cannot be refiled. The court suggested that appointing appellate counsel on remand may be appropriate given the complexity of the procedural issues.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download