Mahler v. Texas County Sheriffs Office et al

1
et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider [Plaintiff’s] § 1983 Claim [Doc.
No. 26]. Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brought this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging violations of his constitutional rights. Plaintiff named as defendants the Texas
County Sheriff’s Office, Matt Boley (the Texas County Sheriff at the time of the alleged
conduct), and Chris Bird (a District Attorney Task Officer for District 1). The matter was
referred to United States Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell for initial proceedings in
accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C).
On September 18, 2025, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation
[Doc. No. 18], in which she recommended that the Court (1) dismiss Defendant Texas
County Sheriff’s Office on the basis that it is not a suable entity under Section 1983; (2)
dismiss Plaintiff’s official-capacity claims against Defendants Boley and Bird; (3) dismiss
Plaintiff’s Section 1983 claims as time-barred; and (4) decline to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SHAWN D. MAHLER, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-481-D
)
TEXAS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, 	)
Case 5:25-cv-00481-D Document 30 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 4

2
In her report, the magistrate judge notified Plaintiff of his right to file an objection
to the report on or before October 9, 2025, and that the failure to object waives Plaintiff’s
right to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained in the report. See Moore
v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991). Given Plaintiff’s failure to timely
object to the magistrate judge’s report, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation
in its entirety and dismissed this action without prejudice. [Doc. Nos. 23, 24].
For part of his § 1983 claim, Plaintiff contended that Defendants unlawfully seized
and retained $12,966 in violation of his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights,
causing him financial and reputational harm. As noted by the magistrate judge, Plaintiff
also “maintain[ed] the District Attorney’s office falsely represented that he forfeited his
rights to these funds in a guilty plea agreement he entered in 2012 to a drug charge in the
Texas County District Court.” [Doc. No. 18, at 3]. In addition to the magistrate judge’s
recommendations that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed, the magistrate judge further
recommended that Plaintiff should not be permitted to amend his complaint because his
claims involving the $12,966 would be untimely. Id. at 6-7. Specifically, the magistrate
judge found that Plaintiff’s claims “appear to have accrued in 2012 when the state district
court sentenced him after he entered a guilty plea to the drug charge,” so the “two-year
statute of limitations related to the forfeiture of cash that the Texas County authorities
seized expired in 2014.” Id. at 7.
Now, Plaintiff asks that the Court reconsider his § 1983 claim, focusing on
Plaintiff’s lack of knowledge with respect to the funds allegedly forfeited in connection
with his 2012 guilty plea. Plaintiff asserts that he was “not aware of the monies not being
Case 5:25-cv-00481-D Document 30 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 4

3
returned to his mother” and was not aware that the funds were allegedly forfeited as part
of his plea agreement [Doc. No. 26, at 1].
“The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not recognize a ‘motion to reconsider.’”
Van Skiver v. United States, 952 F.2d 1241, 1243 (10th Cir. 1991). However, “a district
court always has the inherent power to reconsider its interlocutory rulings.” Warren v. Am.
Bankers Ins. of Fla., 507 F.3d 1239, 1243 (10th Cir. 2007). “Grounds warranting a motion
to reconsider include (1) an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) new evidence
previously unavailable, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest
injustice.” Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012 (10th Cir. 2000) (citations
omitted).
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion to reconsider, and it provides no
sufficient basis for the Court to reconsider its decision that allowing Plaintiff to amend his
complaint would be futile. Notably, Plaintiff did not attempt to explain why he failed to
object to the magistrate judge’s report, which was adopted without objection. See Moore,
950 F.2d at 659 (failure to object waives appellate review of both factual and legal issues
contained in the report). Further, the Court agrees with the magistrate judge that Plaintiff’s
claims involving the funds allegedly forfeited by Plaintiff in connection with his 2012
guilty plea began to accrue in 2012—when the state district court sentenced Plaintiff. In
his motion to reconsider, Plaintiff does not sufficiently explain how he could not have
discovered with reasonable diligence that the funds had been forfeited with his guilty plea,
especially considering the 13 years between Plaintiff’s sentencing and the filing of his
Case 5:25-cv-00481-D Document 30 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 4

4
complaint. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider [Plaintiff’s] § 1983 Claim
[Doc. No. 26] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23 rd day of March, 2026.
. DeGIUSTI
Chief United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-00481-D Document 30 Filed 03/23/26 Page 4 of 4