Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited 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. 09- 30076 Su m m ar y Cal endar

H EN RYJ AM ES P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. S E R GE A NT R I C HA R DS ON ; R D A R I N D AV I S ; J OH NN YR S MI T H; ROBERT Y HEN DERS ON; L I NDA RAM S AY; RI CHARD S TA LDER ; M AS T ER S ER GE ANT P OUS S ON; D GE NE W I L S ON; B RYAN W I L S ON; J OA NN P ES HOF F ; MAS T ER S ER GE ANT B ENNE T T ; DE NNI S C L OUD; SER G EA N T CH AP EL L; J I M RO G ER S D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana N o. 2: 08- C V

- 646

B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * Form eri nm at e H enr y Jam es appeal s t he di sm i ss alof h i s 42 U

. S. C

. § 1983 la w sui tas barred by exp i rat i on of t h e app l i cabl e prescr i ptive peri od u n der L ou i si an a l aw . D u ri n g t h e app eal , Jam es f i led a M ot i on f

or Lea ve t o F i l e a United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

24, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 30076

2 S u pp l em en t alB ri ef

. W e gran tt h at m ot i on an d consi der t h e argu m en t s r ai sed i n t he s uppl em ent albr i ef

. Fort he r eas ons t hatf ol l ow , w e af

f i r m t he di sm i ss al of Ja m es’ s com p l a i n t. J a m e s w a s a n in m a te o f th e L o u i s i a n a D e p a r tm e n t o f C o r r e c tio n s u n til M ay 18 , 20 07
. D ur i ng hi s i nc ar c e r at i o n, he f i l e d at l e ast fou r f r ivo l o us com pl ai n t s in for m ap a u p er is ( IFP ) , bri n gi n g h i m w i t h i n t h e t h ree s t ri kes pen al t y of

28 U

. S

. C

. § 19 1 5 (g)

. Pu rsuan tt o t h at pena l t y, Jam es i s precl u ded f rom proceedi n g IFP “ w h i l e i n carcer ated or d e ta in ed i n an y faci l i t y . . . un l ess [he ] i s u n d er im m i n en t da n ge r of seri ou s p h ys i ca li nj u ry . ” I d. ; s e eAd e

peg ba v. Ham m o ns , 1 0 3 F

. 3 d3 8 3 , 3 8 8 ( 5 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 6 )

. He wa s f i r s td e n i e dI FP s t at us und er§ 1915( g) i n a c ivi lr i ght s c l ai m f i l ed i n 1999. J a m e s f

ile dth is co m p la in t a g a in s t t h e A p p e lle e s o n M a y9 , 2 0 0 8 , n e a r ly
on e y ea r after h i s relea se from pr i son . T h e com p l a in t a lle g e s civilri gh ts vi ol ati o ns o c c ur r i ng f r o m 2 00 3 up t o N o ve m be r7 , 2 00 5, t he da t e w he n J am es
r ec eived an adver se r ul i ng ata pri so n di sc i pl i nary hear i ng. H i s appealof t hat rul i n g w as f

i n al l y den i ed by pri son of f i ci al s on M arch 1, 200 6. T h e di st ri ctcourt gran t ed Ja m es perm i ssi on t o proceed IFP , bu t i t sub sequ en t l y den i ed h i s m ot i on unde r§ 1 91 5( d) f

o rse r vi c e of

pr o c e s s on A ppe l l e e s and di s m i s s e d t he c o m pl ai nt
su asp o n te , f

i ndi ng i t f

r ivol ous und er § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B )

. The c our tc onc l uded t hat Loui s i ana ’ s o ne - ye arpr e s c r i pt ive per i o d f o rJam e s ’ s ca us e s of

a c t i o n ha d e nde d, at t h e l atest , on M arch 1, 200 7, ov e r o n e year bef ore t h e com pl ai n tha d been file d

. J a m e s n o w a p p e a ls , a r g u in g th a t h is in a b ility to p r o c e e d IF P w h ile i nc ar c e r at e d c aus e d hi s c l ai m s t o be t o l l e d f r o m t he t i m e o f t he i r ac c r ualt o t he da t e o f hi s r e l e as e f

r o m pr i s o n. W e re v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l fo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . S ee G o n za les v. W

y a tt , 1 5 7 F. 3 d 1 0 1 6 , 1 0 1 9

– 2 0 ( 5 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 8 )

. S e c t i o n 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B)
r equi r es di sm i ss alof f r ivol ous I FP ac t i ons eve n i f t hos e ac t i ons ar e br oughtby
n o n -p r is o n e rp la in tiffs . S e eNe ws o me v . EEO C , 3 0 1 F .3d 227 , 231 ( 5th C i r.N o. 09- 30076

3 2 0 0 2 ). “[A ] c o m p la in t
. . . is f r iv o lo u s w h e r e itla c k s a n a r g u a b le b a s is e ith e rin l a w or i n fa ct. ” Ne i tz k ev . Wi l l i a ms , 49 0 U .S

. 31 9 , 32 5 ( 1 9 8 9 ). “ D i stri ct cou rts
m aydi s m i s s c l ai m s . . . w he r e ‘ i ti s c l e arf r o m t he fac e o f

a c o m pl ai ntf

i l e d in for m ap a u

p er is t h at t h e cl ai m s assert ed are barred byt h e app l i cabl e st atute of l i m i tati on s. ’” Mo o re v. McD o n a ld , 3 0 F. 3d6 16 , 6 20 ( 5th C i r. 1 99 4) ( quo t i ng G art rel lv. G aylor , 9 81 F. 2d 25 4, 25 6 ( 5t h Ci r . 19 93 ) (pe rc ur i am ) )

. Fo ra c t i o ns brou gh tun der § 1983 , federalcourt s l ook to t h e f orum st ate’ s l i m i t ati on s peri od fo rp e r s o n a l inju r ys u its

. R od rigu ez v. Hol m es , 9 6 3 F .2d 7 9 9 , 8 0 3 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). U nderLoui si ana l aw , t he appl i c able pre sc r i pt ive per i od (t he c ivi ll aw a n a lo g u e to a c o m m o n la w lim ita tio n s p e r io d ) is o n e y e a r . L A
. C IV
. C ODE A NN
. a rt. 3 4 9 2 ; seeE lzy v. R oberson , 8 68 F. 2d7 93 , 7 94 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 98 9) ( ap pl yi ng ar t i c l e 3 49 2 t o § 198 3 ac t i o ns )

. A c aus e o f a c t i o n und e r§ 1 98 3 ac c r ue s w he n “ t he pl ai nt i f f be c o m e s awar e t hat he has s uf fe r e d an i nj ur y o rha s s uf f i c i e nt i n form a ti on to kn ow tha t he h a s be en i nj u red

. ” Helto n v . C lem en ts , 832 F. 2d 332 , 335 ( 5th C i r. 198 7)

. A l t h ou gh federal c o u rts app l yi n g st ate s t atutes of l i m i t at i o ns f

o rc ivi lr i ght s ac t i o ns by pr i s o ne r s m us t give e f fe c t t o s t at ut e s t o l l i ng th e lim ita tio n s p e r io do n a c c o u n t o f in c a r c e r a tio n , Har d i n v . S t r a ub , 4 90 U

. S. 5 3 6 , 5 4 2

– 4 4 (1 9 8 9 ), L o u is ia n a h a s n o s u c h to llin gs ta tu te , s e eLam be r tv . Tou ps , 745 So. 2d 730 , 733 (La. C t
. A pp. 1999) (c i t i ng Hampt o n v . Kroge rCo. , 658 So. 2 d2 0 9 , 2 1 1 (L a . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 5 )). The di s t r i c t c o ur tdi d no ta bus e i t s di s c r e t i o n i n f i ndi ng Ja m e s ’ s c o m pl ai nt barred byt h e ex pi rat i on of the on e- year prescr i ptive peri od. T h e causes of act i on as s e r t e d i n Jam e s ’ s co m pl ai ntw e r e nott o l l e d m e r e l y as a r e s ul to f J am e s b e i ng a pri soner. N or di d th e th re e s t ri kes pen al t y of § 1915 ( d) preven tJam es f rom fi li n ga c o m p la in tin e it h e rfe d e r a l o rs t a t e c o u r t ; itm e r e lyr e v o k e dJ a m e s ’s p r iv ile g e to p r o c e e dIF P a n dr e q u ir e dh im to p a yth e a p p r o p r ia te filin gfe e s . S ee A depegba , 103 F. 3d at387 ( “ Pri so ner s w ho ar e no tal l ow ed t o pr oc ee d i

. f

. p. m ay p u rs u e th e ir s u b s t a n tiv e cla im s ju st a s a n y o n e els e b yp a y in gth e fi li n gfee .”)

.N o. 09- 30076

4 Jam es fai l ed to do so; t h e prescr i ptive peri od f or hi s c u rrent ca u se s of act i on ac c o r di ngly e xp i r e d b e f o r e he f i l e d t he co m pl ai nton M ay7, 200 8. Bec aus e t he p resc ri p tive pe ri od f

or J a m es’ s cl a i m s h a de xp i red b efore h e fi l ed h i s com p l a i n t, t h e di st ri ctcourtdi d n otabu se i t s di scr et i on i n f i n di n g t h at t h e com pl ai n tl acked
an argu able basi s ei t h er i n l aw or i n factan d d i sm i ssi n g i tas f rivol ou s. Ja m e s ’ s M o t i o n f

o r Lea ve t o Fi l e a Supp l e m e nt al Bri e f i s G RA N TE D

. The j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s A F F I RMED.