Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-18-60601/USCOURTS-ca5-18-60601-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60601

Summary Calendar

PATRICK L. KING,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JAMES HOOD, State Attorney General; PATRICK BEASLEY, State Assistant 

Attorney General; LEE MCDIVITT, State Attorney General Investigator; AL 

FARRISH, JR., HPD Investigator; LAMAR PICKARD, Copiah County Circuit 

Judge; THERESA LUMLEY, Copiah County Official Court Reporter; 

CHRISTOPHER EPPS, Former Mississippi Department of Corrections 

Commissioner; SHERRY ROBINSON, Former Director of Records; EVELYN 

DIXION, Project Officer III; ELISHA CARMICHAEL; BOBBY MOAK, Former 

Representative; GEORGE FLAGGS, Former State Representative; WILLIE 

BAILEY, Representative,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:17-CV-859

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 28, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 18-60601 Document: 00515431778 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/28/2020
No. 18-60601

2

Proceeding pro se, Patrick L. King sued state officials in October 2017 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 

Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968, seeking redress for alleged 

wrongs arising out of his 2012–13 arrests, conviction, and sentencing for

pirating DVDs and CDs under state law. The district court granted the 

defendants’ motions to dismiss on various grounds, including that his suit was 

untimely under the applicable three-year Mississippi statute of limitations and 

the four-year statute of limitations for civil RICO claims. See Cuvillier v. 

Taylor, 503 F.3d 397, 401 (5th Cir. 2007); Corwin v. Marney, Orton Invs., 843 

F.2d 194, 199 (5th Cir. 1999). King timely appealed. 

We review dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo. Smith v. Hood, 900 

F.3d 180, 184 (5th Cir. 2018). We may affirm on any ground supported by the 

record. R2 Invs. LDC v. Phillips, 401 F.3d 638, 642 (5th Cir. 2005). Review of 

the record and King’s briefs filed in this appeal show no error in the district 

court’s conclusion that his suit was time-barred. Insofar as King argues that 

limitations should be tolled due to fraudulent concealment, see Ross v. 

Citifinancial, Inc., 344 F.3d 458, 463-64 (5th Cir. 2003), this argument fails 

because King fails to allege any particular acts of concealment on the part of 

the defendants. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED, and all 

outstanding motions are DENIED. 

Case: 18-60601 Document: 00515431778 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/28/2020