Torrez v. Barron

What This Case Is About

Torrez v. Barron is a § 1983 civil rights action arising from a traffic stop by the Irving Police Department. Plaintiffs Bobby Torrez and Dorothy Torrez (Bobby’s sister) sued Officer Jacoby Barron for excessive force. The court’s initial ruling addressed a threshold service-of-process issue before reaching the merits.

The Facts

The Irving Police Department signaled for Bobby Torrez to pull over during a traffic stop. Instead of stopping, Bobby Torrez drove home to a different city. After following Bobby Torrez home, Officer Barron tased Bobby Torrez, then jumped on, handcuffed, and beat him. Dorothy Torrez, Bobby’s sister, witnessed the encounter.

Upon arriving at the hospital, Bobby Torrez had several facial fractures, including a broken nose, broken orbital bone, and broken jaw, as well as an injury to his left eye, and scratches and bruises on his face, forehead, mouth, chest, arms, hands, and back.

What the Court Decided

Officer Barron moved to dismiss for improper service and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court (Judge Brantley Starr) granted the motion in part on the service issue.

Service of process was improper. The plaintiffs served Officer Barron by delivering copies to the city secretary of Irving. However, under Rule 4(e)(2)(A), when the defendant is an individual, service must be completed by delivering the summons and complaint to the individual personally. Service on the city secretary is not proper service on an individual officer.

Dismissal was not warranted. Rather than dismissing the case, the court ordered plaintiffs to properly serve Officer Barron within 21 days. The court noted that dismissal without prejudice would effectively bar the plaintiffs from refiling due to the statute of limitations, citing Millan v. USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 546 F.3d 321, 325 (5th Cir. 2008) (a discretionary extension may be warranted if the limitations period would bar a refiled action).

Rule 12(b)(6) arguments deferred. Because the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Officer Barron due to improper service, it declined to reach the merits of his Rule 12(b)(6) arguments.

The court also noted that if Dorothy Torrez wished to proceed under Texas common law instead of § 1983, she must file a motion for leave to amend within 21 days.

Why This Case Matters for Your § 1983 Case

Serve individual officers personally. This case is a reminder that when suing officers individually under § 1983, you must serve them under Rule 4(e)(2)(A)—typically by personal delivery. Serving the city secretary or city attorney’s office is not sufficient service on individual defendants.

Courts may grant extensions to cure service defects. When the statute of limitations would bar a refiled action, courts have discretion to allow additional time for proper service rather than dismissing outright.

The statute of limitations matters. The court’s willingness to grant an extension rather than dismiss was driven by the fact that the limitations period had likely run. Plaintiffs should serve defendants as early as possible to avoid this problem.

Excessive force claims involving flight. The facts here—a suspect who fled a traffic stop and was then tased, jumped on, handcuffed, and beaten—raise the typical Graham v. Connor questions about proportionality of force to the threat posed.

Key Takeaway

When suing individual police officers under § 1983, proper service of process on each individual defendant is essential. Service on a city office is not substitute for personal service on an individual. If you miss the service deadline, you may get an extension if the statute of limitations would bar refiling—but don’t count on it.