Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_06-cv-04027/USCOURTS-arwd-4_06-cv-04027-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-1-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

WALTER ANTHONY DeSHAZO PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 06-4027 

JOHN PARTAIN, Sheriff, Servier County,

Arkansas; RICHARD W. WIGGINS; and

CHRIS BRACKETT DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Walter DeShazo brings this pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His

complaint was filed in forma pauperis (IFP) and it is now determined whether it should be served

upon the defendants. Also before this court is plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint. (Doc. 8).

I. Discussion

DeShazo contends that Officer R. W. Wiggins, along with Deputies Chad Dowdle and Mike

Wilson, seized a computer owned by DeShazo from the residence of Mac and Mary Lambeth on

or about March 13, 2003. (Doc. 1, 7). Further, he also alleges that these officers violated his due

process rights by destroying the hard drive of said computer, causing the loss of all valuable

information contained on the computer's hard drive. (Doc. 1, 7). 

DeShazo’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations as they are based on events that

occurred more than three years before the filing of this complaint. Section 1983 actions are

characterized as personal injury claims for purposes of applying the appropriate state statute of

limitations. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276, 105 S. Ct. 1938, 85 L. Ed. 2d 254 (1985).

Arkansas’ three-year personal injury statute applies to any § 1983 actions that accrued in this state.

Searcy v. Donelson, 204 F.3d 797, 799 (8th Cir. 2000); Ketchum v. City of West Memphis, 974 F.2d

Case 4:06-cv-04027-HFB Document 9 Filed 11/16/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

-2-

81, 82 (8th Cir. 1992). This case was filed on April 11, 2006. (Doc. 1). The alleged actions the

subject of this suit occurred on or about March 13, 2003, more than three years prior to the filing

of the complaint.

II. Conclusion

Accordingly, this case is hereby dismissed as it is barred by the statute of limitations. As

such, plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint is also denied. (Doc. 8).

DATED this 15th day of November 2006.

/s/ Harry F. Barnes

HONORABLE HARRY F. BARNES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:06-cv-04027-HFB Document 9 Filed 11/16/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>