Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20700/USCOURTS-ca5-14-20700-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20700

Summary Calendar

ERIC D. STEWART,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BRAD LIVINGSTON, Executive Director of Texas Department of Criminal 

Justice in his official capacity; THOMAS LEEPER; JUANITA GONZALEZ; 

STUART JENKINS; RISSIE L. OWENS; DAVID GUTIERREZ; CONRITH 

DAVIS; JACKI DENOYELLES; CHARLES AYCOCK,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:13-CV-1812

Before KING, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eric D. Stewart, Texas prisoner # 1209188, appeals the summary 

judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit as time-barred. He argues, 

for the first time on appeal, that his suit was timely because it was filed within 

two years of exhausting his state remedies. Alternatively, Stewart contends 

 

* 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

September 10, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-20700 Document: 00513188480 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2015
No. 14-20700

2

that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine the date on which 

his cause of action accrued. 

These arguments lack merit. The undisputed facts, including the 

allegations in the complaint, show that Stewart was made aware of the 

imposition of the sex offender conditions, the basis for his lawsuit, when his 

most recent parole certificate containing those conditions issued on September 

16, 2008. He therefore knew or should have known the facts supporting his 

claims on that date, meaning that his cause of action accrued, and the 

limitations period began to run, at that time. See Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 

237 F.3d 567, 576 (5th Cir. 2001). As the district court determined, the 

limitations period expired two years later, on September 16, 2010, and the 

instant lawsuit, filed more than three years after the expiration of the 

limitations period, is time-barred. See Stanley v. Foster, 464 F.3d 565, 568 (5th 

Cir. 2006); TEX. CIV. PRAC & REM. CODE ANN. § 16.003(a). 

Stewart presented no summary judgment evidence to support his 

conclusory assertion that his lawsuit is timely, and he points to no material 

factual dispute which precluded summary judgment. See FED. R. CIV.

P. 56(c)(1). The instant appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore

dismissed as frivolous. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 

This court’s dismissal of Stewart’s appeal as frivolous counts as a strike 

for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 

385-87 (5th Cir. 1996). Stewart is cautioned that if he accumulates three 

strikes under § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any 

civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility, 

unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).

APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

 Case: 14-20700 Document: 00513188480 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/10/2015