The Eagle Review - Federal

Federal Magistrate Recommending Dismissal of Lawsuit on Two Police Chiefs – MOTION OR APPEAL WILL FOLLOW IF DISTRICT JUDGE AGREES WITH RECOMMENDATIONS

There is a pending lawsuit on two Police Chief and the Federal Magistrate Judge of the US District Court, Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, is recommending the dismissal of the case.

This will typically happen when a matter that has stemmed from the filing has not concluded. An example of this, in this case, is a Police Chief filing a complaint and the matter of the complaint has not concluded, so the court can see no legal standing until the matter concludes, this would be considered, in legal terms “frivolous,” under legal concepts and does not mean the case is factually untrue.

Another reason, for another Police Chief, is the matter is under Habeas Corpus relief process and therefore barred from proceeding. This would also lead to the same determination.

It would also limit the claim one could state, until both matters are resolved. Once the matters are resolved, the matter can be filed again.

It is important to note, the need to file lawsuit within two years of harm is a legal requirement. So, even if the case has not closed, within two years of the violation, a lawsuit would need to be filed.

The intent of the lawsuit is to provide facts and to protect the ability to file lawsuit once the matters are resolved.

The statement is plenty true. The case, just has to wait until the stemming matters resolve, but the time bar has been stopped.

There can be a motion to reconsider filed, if it is the decision of the Judge to stay with the Magistrate Judges recommendations, but the purpose of the lawsuit is to present facts and to stop the statue of limitations on the initial act.

So, again, the dismissal, is seen as a technicality until the actual matter of harm concludes.

We believe a motion or an appeal is in order, because the legal requirements for the matter is as follows:

Section 1983 – Unlawful Seizure – Arrest – Warrant Application

To show that the arrest pursuant to this warrant violated the Fourth Amendment, must prove each of the following three things by a preponderance of the evidence:

First: In the warrant affidavit, [defendant] made false statements, or omissions that created a falsehood.
Second: [Defendant] made those false statements or omissions either deliberately, or with a reckless disregard for the truth.
Third: Those false statements or omissions were material, or necessary, to the finding of probable cause for the arrest warrant.
That is why I have a claim with merit.

This has been met; easily, we just didn’t make the statements that clear and concise, but we will in the motions.