No-Name, No-Toll:
Fifth Circuit Clarifies Accrual and Equitable Tolling for § 1983 Claims

Introduction

In Jenkins v. Tahmahkera, No. 24-10724 (5th Cir. Aug. 19, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit confronted a recurring statute-of-limitations puzzle in civil-rights litigation: When does a § 1983 cause of action accrue against individual state actors whose names are unknown to the plaintiff, and can equitable tolling rescue claims when the plaintiff suspects wrongdoing but is stonewalled by governmental entities that possess the relevant facts?

The case rose out of the 2019 in-custody death of Robert Geron Miller. His widow, Shanelle Jenkins, sued Tarrant County officials in 2021, then—after belated disclosures—filed a second suit in 2023 against ten jail employees and nurses. The district court dismissed the second suit as untimely under Texas’s two-year limitations period. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, announcing two key holdings:

1. Accrual occurs when the plaintiff knows (or should know) the injury and its causal connection to state action, even if the precise individual offenders are unidentified.
2. Texas’s fraudulent-concealment tolling applies only when the defendant itself concealed facts and the plaintiff exercised reasonable diligence.

Summary of the Judgment

Applying de novo review, Judge Cory T. Wilson (joined by Judges Higginson and Ho, with Higginson dissenting) held that:

• Jenkins’s § 1983 excessive-force and wrongful-death claims accrued “several days” after Miller’s death in August 2019, when she learned he had died while in Tarrant County custody.
• The two-year Texas personal-injury statute therefore expired in August 2021, rendering the November 30, 2023 complaint untimely.
• Lack of knowledge of each defendant’s name does not delay accrual; plaintiffs must investigate within the limitations window.
• Fraudulent concealment tolling failed because (i) Jenkins alleged concealment only by Tarrant County and the Texas Rangers, not by the ten individual defendants, and (ii) she did not pursue available discovery tools diligently.
• Because limitations barred the claims, the panel declined to reach qualified-immunity defenses.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Gartrell v. Gaylor, 981 F.2d 254 (5th Cir. 1993) – Restated the federal rule that accrual starts when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury and who inflicted it. The court leveraged this language but stressed the “reason to know” component over actual identification.
• Stewart v. Parish of Jefferson, 951 F.2d 681 (5th Cir. 1992) – Provided the “causal connection” test; cited to confirm that suspicion of official involvement triggers a duty to investigate.
• Piotrowski v. City of Houston (Piotrowski I & II) – Used to underscore that complete factual knowledge is unnecessary; only awareness sufficient to prompt a reasonable inquiry is required.
• Balle v. Nueces County, 952 F.3d 552 (5th Cir. 2017) – Distinguished unpublished tolling cases and supported the proposition that filing close to the deadline, then learning identities later, does not extend limitations.
• Texas authorities: Wagner & Brown v. Horwood, BP Am. Prod. Co. v. Marshall, and S.V. v. R.V. – Supplied the elements of fraudulent-concealment tolling under state law (underlying wrong, defendant’s knowledge, intent to deceive, reasonable diligence).

B. Legal Reasoning

1. Federal accrual rule prevails. The panel reaffirmed that federal law governs when a § 1983 claim accrues, borrowing only the state limitation period itself.
2. Knowledge of injury + causal nexus suffices. Once Jenkins knew Miller died in jail, she was on inquiry notice that state actors might be responsible; the duty to investigate began immediately.
3. Identity-ignorance no excuse. Echoing Balle, the court treated unidentified actors as no bar to accrual; plaintiffs can sue John Does or timely use discovery to identify names.
4. Strict fraudulent-concealment test. Because the named individual defendants were never alleged to have personally hidden facts from Jenkins, they were not estopped from invoking limitations—even if the county or state agency did so.
5. Diligence benchmark. The panel criticized Jenkins’s reliance on public-record requests instead of subpoenas or Rule 30(b)(6) depositions, viewing her efforts as insufficient diligence to warrant equitable relief.

C. Likely Impact of the Decision

• Tighter limitations window in the Fifth Circuit. Civil-rights plaintiffs can no longer rely on later discovery of defendant names to revive stale claims; the “clock” starts when circumstances suggest possible wrongdoing, not when identities are revealed.
• Strategic shift toward early Doe pleadings. Lawyers will feel pressure to sue unnamed officers quickly, then seek expedited discovery to substitute real names before limitations expires.
• Higher diligence threshold. The court’s critique of Jenkins’s investigative strategy signals that informal open-records requests may be deemed inadequate; plaintiffs must deploy formal discovery tools promptly.
• Limited reach of fraudulent-concealment tolling. By requiring concealment by the very defendant asserting the defense, the ruling narrows a path that previously allowed tolling based on institutional cover-ups.
• Potential circuit tension. Other circuits (e.g., 7th, 9th) afford more lenient accrual or tolling where identities are unknown; Supreme Court intervention may be solicited to resolve divergence.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Accrual

The moment the legal “clock” starts ticking on a lawsuit—i.e., when the plaintiff has enough facts to file suit.

Inquiry Notice

The point at which a reasonable person suspects wrongdoing and should investigate, even if all facts are not yet known.

Fraudulent Concealment (Texas)

An equitable doctrine pausing limitations when a defendant intentionally hides facts, but it ends once the plaintiff learns enough to prompt further inquiry.

Equitable Tolling vs. Accrual

Accrual determines when limitations begins; tolling determines whether it pauses after starting.

Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition

A discovery device requiring an organization to designate a representative to testify on specified topics.

Qualified Immunity

A defense shielding officials from liability unless they violated clearly established law; left undecided here.

Conclusion

Jenkins v. Tahmahkera sets a stringent precedent in the Fifth Circuit: plaintiffs must act swiftly once they suspect state-actor involvement, and ignorance of individual defendants’ names will not defer accrual. Equitable tolling for concealment is now effectively limited to scenarios where the very defendant sued engaged in deception and the plaintiff exercised rigorous diligence. The decision reshapes litigation strategy in civil-rights cases, emphasizing early filing, Doe defendants, and aggressive discovery. While promoting promptness and repose, the ruling also raises concerns about access to justice when governmental entities control the flow of critical information. Whether higher courts will harmonize differing circuit approaches remains an open question, but for now, the Fifth Circuit’s message is clear: “No-Name, No-Toll.”