Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 41359 S u m m ary C al en da r

R AY M O N D L E B O U E F , P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t ,
ve r s us IS L A N D O P E R A T IN G C O M P A N Y , IN C ., D efen da n t
- A pp el l ee .

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas N o. 3: 06- C V

- 613

B ef ore S M ITH , ST E W A R T , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. JE R R YE
. SM ITH , C i rcui tJu dg e: *

I
. Raym o nd Le bo ue f

w as i nj ur e d o n Augus t2 3, 2 005, w hi l e w o r ki ng o n a United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust31, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 41359

See 28 U.S.C. § 1 915A (requirin g the court to review prison er suits and dismiss any 1 complaint that “i s frivolou s, maliciou s, or fail s to state a clai m on whichrelief maybegranted. ”) ; 28 U. S. C. § 1915( e)( 2) (a utho rizing suaspontedis mi ssal of inf or map au

pe rispetition s th at aref

rivolou s, maliciou s, o r failto st ateaclaim); Stanley v. F oster , 46 4 F .3d 5 65, 567 -68 & n.2 ( autho rizing suaspontedismissal of § 198 3 suit on statut e of li mitations gro und s un der § 1 9 1 5 (e))

. 2 f i xed oi lpl a tfor m and s ued N ew f i el d E xpl or at i on C om pany on Sept em ber29, 2 0 0 6 , u n d e rt h e Ou t e rC o n t i n e n t a lS h e l f L a n d s A c t
. L e b o u e f

a me n d e d h i s c o mpl ai nt o n Se pt e m be r 18 , 20 07 , t o ad d I s l andO pe r at i ng Com pa ny, I nc . ( “ I s l and O per at i ng” ) as a de fendant
. T he part i es do notdi sput e t he appl i c abi l i t y o fTexas ’ s t w o - ye ars t at ut e o f l i m i t at i o ns t o t hi s pe r s o nal

- i nj ur y ac t i o n. Is l an d O perati n g’ s answ er t o t h e second am en ded com pl ai n t di d n otrai se a l i m i t ati on s bar but onl y st ated, w i t h ou texpl an ati on , “T h e C om pl ai n tf i l ed he r e i n fai l s t o st at e a cl ai m upo n whi c h r e l i e f c an be g r ant e d. ” Se ve r alm o nt hs l a ter, after pa rti ci p a ti n g in discov ery an d f u rth er p roce ed i n gs , bo th de fen d a n ts
m oved f or s u m m ary j u dg m en ton a su bstantive i ssue t h at Leb ou ef does not r ai se on app eal ; I sl an d O perati n g al so argued t h at t h e sui ti s barred by l i m i t ati on s. T h e d i s t r i c tc o ur the l d t hatt he l i m i t at i o ns de fe ns e w as no tw aive d, beca u se, i t st a ted , a co u rt can raise i t su asp o n te ; t he c our tgr ant ed s um m ar y j udgm e ntf o rb o t h de fe nda nt s . Le bo ue f a ppe al s , c l ai m i ng ( 1) t hatI s l andO pe r at i ng c annotr el y o n l i m i t at i ons , bec ause i t w as notpr ope r l y pl eade d as an af f i r m at i ve defense; ( 2) t h e distr ict co u rtshou l d n otha ve rai sed t h e l i m i t ati on s bar s ua sp o n te ; a nd ( 3) l i m i t at i o ns w as t o l l e d.

II. A court m ay rai se a l i m i t ati on s bar su asp o n te on l y i n a l i m i t ed n u m ber of p a r t i c u l a rc i r c u m s t a n c e s . F o re x a m p l e , i n a s u i tb ya p r i s o n e ru n d e r4 2 U. S

. C. § 1 98 3, t he di s t r i c tc o ur tha s a s t at ut o r y r e s po n si bi l i t y t o s c r e e n o utf r i vo l o us sui t s. 1N o. 08- 41359

3 Acou rt m a y a l so d i sm i ss a su i t su asp o n te i f a l i m i t at i o ns b arde s t r o ys f e dera lj u ri sd i cti on . “It i s w ell -estab l i sh ed th a t, if a w a i ve r of sove reign i m m u n i ty
c ont ai ns a l i m i t at i ons per i od, a pl ai nt i f f ’ s fai l ure to fi l e h i s ac t i on w i t hi n t hat p eriod d ep ri ve s th e cou rt of j u ri sd i cti on . ” G an dy Nu rse ry, I n c. v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 318 F
. 3d 631 , 637 ( 5th C i r. 200 3)

. A govern m en t defenda n tw h o fai l s t o asser t l i m i t ati on s as an a f

f i rm ative defense ha s t h u s not w ai ved i t , becau se t h e defect i n t he c l ai m m eans t hat t he c our tdoe s nothave j uri sdi c t i on to h earthe s ui tat
a ll. I d. “ [ S ] u bj ect
- m att er j u ri sdi ct i on i s n ot w ai vab l e, an d the federalcourt s are u n der a conti n u i n g du t y t o i n qu i re i n t o t h e basi s of j u ri sdi ct i on i n t h e di st ri ct
cou rt. ” W

arren v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 8 7 4 F .2 d 2 8 0 , 2 8 1 -8 2 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 9 ). B ot h of t h ose s i t u ati on s are speci alcases i n w h i ch the courtha s s om e part i cul ar du t y t o deci de the li m ita tions i ssue becau se of a st atutor y com m an d or
a j ur i s di c t i o nal l i m i t at i o n. They ar e e xc e pt i o ns t o t he g e ne r alr ul e t hata de fe ndant m ustr ai se an af f i r m at i ve def

ens e i n hi s answ erto the c om pl ai nt
. Feder al R u l e of C i vilP roce d u re 8 (c) req u i res th a t “[ i ]n resp on d i n g to a plea d i n g, a p a rty
m u s t a ffir m a tiv e lys ta t e a n ya v o id a n c e o ra ffir m a tiv e d e fe n s e , in c lu d in g. . . s t a t u t e o f

l i mi t a t i o n s . ” I f

t h e a f f i r ma t i v e d e fe n s e i s n o ti n c l u d e d i n t h e c o mp la in t, it is w a iv e d
. D av i s v . H us ki po w e rO ut do o rEqui p. Cor p. , 936 F. 2d 193, 198 ( 5th C i r. 199 1)

. O n ce th e d e fen d a n tha s w ai ved t h at defen se, i t“ can n ot
r evive t he def

ens e i n a m em or andum i n suppor tof a m ot i on f

ors um m ar y j udgm en t, ” Fu ndi ng Sys. Leas i ng Cor p. v. Pugh , 530 F. 2d 91, 96 ( 5t h C i r . 1976) , as Is l an d O perati n g t ri ed to do h ere. I tf ol l ow s t h at i n a n ord i n ary civi lcase, w h ere t he di st r i c tc our thas no spec i aldu t y t o exam i ne the pl eadi ngs, the af f i r m at i ve de fe ns e of

st at ut e o f

l i m i t at i o ns c an be w aive d a nd m ayno tb e r ai s e d b y t he
cou rt su asp o n te
. S ee E ri l i n e Co. v. Joh n son , 4 4 0 F .3d 6 4 8 , 6 5 7 (4t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). Isl a n d O p era ti n g a rg u es t h a t i t p rop erly ra i sed th e l i m i tati on s ba r i n i ts
a n s w e rb yits s ta te m e n t t h a t L e b o u e f fa ile d t o s ta te a c la im o n w h ic h re lie f c o u ld be gran t ed. Th at st atem en tw as n otsu f f i ci en tto provi de an y n ot i ce t o L ebou efN o. 08- 41359

4 t h at t h ere w as a l i m i t ati on s probl em or t h at I sl an d O perati n g i n t en ded t o rai se a l i m i t ati on s defense. T rue, “ [ t ] h e pl ead i n g of af f i rm ative defenses i s governed b y th e sa m e lib era lstan d a rd s as tho se for a co m p l a i n t. ” Ma r in e O v e r s e a s S e r v s ., Inc. v. C ross oci an S h i pp i ng Co. , I

n c. , 79 1 F. 2d 12 27 , 1 23 3 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 98 6)

. But gi ven t hat ther e are n i net ee n af f i r m at i ve def

ens es l i st ed i n r ul e 8 ( c ) , as w el las ot h er def

i ci en ci es t h at c an cause fai l u re t o st ate a cl ai m , t h e defen da n tm u stprovi de atl eas tsom e i nf or m at i on thatal er t s t he pl ai nt i f f t o w hat t he al l ege d pr oble m is
. Is la n d O p e r a tin g ’ s u n e la b o r a te d s ta te m e n t o f fa ilu r e to s ta te a cla im d id
n otprovi de en ou gh i n f orm ati on t o preserve i t s af f i rm ative defense. I sl and O per at i ng al so c l ai m s t hat Lebouef had ac t ual not i c e of t he l i m i t at i on s i ssue becau se of i n f orm alconversati on s t h at t ook p l ace out o f c o u rt bet w een t h e att orneys. T h e content of t h e conversati on s i s di spu t ed, an d, becau se th e ya r e n o t in th e re c o r d , w e t a k e n o n o tic e o f th e m , e v e n a s s u m in g , argue ndo , t h at t h e exi st en ce of such d i scussi on s w ou l d m ak e a di f ference. Th e s u m m a r yj u d g m e n ti s REVERS ED, a n d t h i s mat t e ri s REM ANDED f or f u rt h er proc eedi n gs. W e ex press n o op i n i on on h ow t h i s l i t i gati on shou l d p roc e e d o n r e m and
.