against the
officers; and negligence against both the officers and the City. He also sought
punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. The defendants filed special exceptions
to the original petition, seeking clarification as to whether Quinn was asserting
any federal claims. The City also moved to dismiss the claims against the
officers under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 101.106(e). The state
court granted the motion to dismiss the officers. Quinn then filed a motion for
rehearing or reconsideration, which the state court denied. The court also
sustained the defendants’ special exceptions, instructing Quinn to replead to
the extent he was asserting a federal cause of action.
      Quinn amended his original petition on March 23, 2009, to include
causes of action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. He alleged violations of
various constitutional                               DISCUSSION
      Quinn alleges five points of error on appeal. First, he argues the district
court erred by denying the motion to remand because his original petition
included factual allegations sufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction.    As a
result, he argues the defendants’ removal several months later was untimely.
Second, he argues the state court erred in dismissing his intentional-tort
claims against the officers; in turn, he alleges the district court erred by not
reversing that dismissal.     Third, he argues the district court erred by
dismissing his federal claims against the officers on limitations