Case: 12-51057 Document: 00512337160 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2013
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
August 9, 2013
No. 12-51057 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
JOSE VASQUEZ, As Personal Representative
of the Estate of Sergio Vasquez, Deceased;
HEATHER LAUREL, also known as Helen
Vasquez, Guardian of V.A.V., a minor,
Heir of the Estate of Sergio Vasquez;
RICK STONE,
Plaintiffs - Appellants
v.
THE BOILER ROOM;
FT AVILA & IV ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED;
RL WORTH & ASSOCIATES;
DEPUTY ARNOLD MENCHACA;
SHERIFF AMADEO ORTIZ; BEXAR COUNTY,
Defendants - Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:11-CV-920
Before JONES, SMITH and GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The court, having heard oral argument and reviewed the parties’ briefs and the
record on appeal, holds that there is no reversible error of fact or law.
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Case: 12-51057 Document: 00512337160 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/09/2013
No. 12-51057
1. Stone’s claim is time barred because he filed it after the two-year statute of
limitations had expired. The limitation period began to run on the date Stone
was shot, even though he did not know the true identity of the wrongdoer.
Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31, 36, 40 (Tex. 1998). Stone’s fraudulent
concealment argument is waived because it was not pursued in the district
court. LeMarie v. La. Dep’t of Transp. & Dev., 480 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2007).
2. Menchaca was entitled to qualified immunity under well-settled Circuit
precedent. Ontiveros v. City of Rosenberg, Tex., 564 F.3d 379, 380. Vasquez’
actions posed a serious threat to those around him, and it was reasonable for
Menchaca to use deadly force. See Id. at 385.
3. The district court properly dismissed Vasquez’ premises liability and negligent
hiring, supervision, and training claims against RL Worth because Vasquez did
not point the court to any evidence supporting these claims.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2