Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d and 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

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 20062 Su m m ar y Cal endar

D A N IE L T M A D IS , P l a i n tiff-A p p ell a n t v. W A R D E N E D W A R D S ; W A R D E N B O N E ; W A R D E N G IN S E L , D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or th e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 09- C V

- 22

B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * D a n ie l T . M a d is (“M a d is ”) a p p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l o f h is § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n . F o rth e re a s o n s s ta te db e lo w , w e a ffir m . F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS M adi s, a Texas i nm at e pr oc ee di ng pro se a nd in f o rm ap a u

p er is , f i l e d a civi lri gh t s l aw sui ti n w h i ch h e al l eged t h at pri son of f i ci al s den i ed h i m f

ood f rom M a y 2 6 , 20 0 5 u n tilD ece m b er 1 7 , 2 0 0 5
. M a d i s cl a i m s to h a ve f i l ed ov er fifty United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 1, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 20062

2 gri evan ces du ri n gth is t i m e, an d att ach ed severalt o hi s c om pl ai n t
. Th e m ost
r e c e n t a tt a c h e dg r ie v a n c e w a s d e n ie do n F e b r u a r y1 4 , 2 0 0 6
. T h e di st ri ctcourtdi sm i ssed t h e case suasponte und er28 U
. S. C

. § 1915A
as f r ivo l ou s and f

o rfail ur e t o s t at e ac l ai m b e c aus e i tw as t i m e - ba r r e d. A ccor di n g t o t h e di st ri ctj u dg e, pl ai nt i f f ’ s al l egat i ons s how t hathi s c ause of ac t i on ac c r ued on M ay 26 , 2 00 5. Ac c e pt i ng as t r ue pl ai nt i f f ’ s e vi de nt i ar y as s e r t i o n t hathe e xha us t e d hi s a dm i ni s t r at ive g r i e va nc e s o n Feb r uar y 14 , 2 00 6, a nd af f ordi n g h i s c om pl ai n tt h e m ostlib e ra lof possibl e const ructi on s, p la in tiff

’ s lim ita tio n s e x p ir e d o n o r a b o u t F e b r u a r y1 4 , 2 0 0 8
. T h is l aw sui t w as f

i l ed D ecem ber 23, 200 8, over t en m on th s a f t er l i m i t ati on s expi red, an d i s barred by l i m i t ati on s. M ad i s f i l ed thi s t i m el y ap pea l , w h i ch h e h a s sty l ed an “A pp l i cat i on f or a C ertif i ca te of A p p ea l a b i l i ty” u n d er th e A n titerror i sm an dE ff ective D ea th Pena l t y Act

. M ad i s do e s no tne e d ac e r t i f i c at e of a ppe al ab i l i t y t o a ppe alt he d is m is s a l o f h is § 1 9 8 3 cla im
. S ee 28 U
. S

. C

. § 225 3(c) ( 1) ( “ U n l ess a ci rcui tj u st i ce or jud ge i ssu es a cert ific a te o f a p p ea l a b i l i ty, an ap p ea lm a y b e n ot be tak en to th e co u r t o f a p p e a ls f r o m (A) th e f

in a l o r d e rin a h a b e a s co r p u s p r o c e e d in g. . . ; o r(B ) t h e fi n a l o r d e rin ap r o c e e d in gu n d e rs e c t io n 2 2 5 5 .” ). W e t r e a tM a d is ’s pl ead i ng as adir e c ta ppe alo f t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s di s m i s s alo f hi s c o m pl ai nt
u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A

. S TA NDARD OF RE VI EW W e r e v i e w d e novo t h e d i s m i s s a lo f a c o m p l a i n tun d e r2 8 U
. S

. C. § 1 9 1 5 A. G eiger v. Jow ers , 404 F
. 3d371 , 373 ( 5th C i r. 200 5)

. To stat e a cl ai m up on w h i ch reli ef m a y b e gr a n ted , “th e p l a i n tiff m u st p l ea de n ou gh fac ts to sta te a claim to reli ef th a t i s p l a u sibl e on i ts fa ce.” SeeIn reK at r i na CanalB r e ache s Li t ig. , 495 F. 3 d1 9 1 , 2 0 5 ( 5 t h Cir . 2 0 0 7 ) (i n t e r n alquo t a t i o n s a n dc i t a t i o n o m i t t e d)

. “ [A] p la in tiff

’ s o b li g a t io n to p ro v id e th e ‘ g ro u n d s’ o f h is ‘ e n title[m e n t] to r e li e f’
r e quir e s m o r e t han l ab e l s a nd c o nc l us i o ns , a nd af o r m ul ai cr e c i t at i o n o f t heN o. 09- 20062

3 elem en ts of a ca u se of a cti on w i l ln ot d o.” B ell A tl. Co rp . v . Tw o m b ly , 5 50 U
. S. 544 , 555 ( 200 7) (i n t erna l cit ati on om i t t ed). In ef fect , “ [f ] act u alal l egati on s m u st b e en ou gh to ra i se a ri gh t t o reli ef ab ov e th e sp ecu l a tive l ev el. ” I d. (i nt er nal ci tati on om i tte d ); s e eals o As hc rof tv . I qb al , 1 2 9 S

. C t. 1 9 3 7 , 1 9 4 9 -5 0 (20 0 9 ). W h i l e pro secom pl ai n t s are h el d to l ess st ri n gen tst an da rds t h an t h ose draf t ed by l aw yer s, “ c onc l uso r y all egat i ons or l egal c onc l usi ons m as quer adi ng as fac t ual
con cl u sion s w i l ln ot p rev en t a m oti on to dism i ss. ” Tay lo rv . Boo ksA Mi l l i o n, Inc. , 2 9 6 F .3 d3 7 6 , 3 7 8 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) (q u o ta tio n o m itt e d). DI S CU S S I ON Ad i st r i c tc our tm ay suasponte di s m i s s a c o m pl ai nt as f r ivo l ou s on st a tu te -of-li m ita tion s g ro u n d s if it is clea r fro m th e co m p la in t th a t th e cla im s are tim e -b a r r e d
. Mo o r e v . McD o n a ld , 30 F
. 3d616 , 620 ( 5th C i r. 199 4)

. B ecau se § 1 983 do es notpr ovi de a st at ut e o f l i m i t at i ons , t he f

or um s t at e’ s gener al p e r s o n a l inju r ylim ita tio n s p e r io da p p lie s . I d. I n T exas, t h e app l i cabl e peri od is tw o y e a r s . S t an ley v. F ost er , 464 F. 3d 565, 568 ( 5t h C i r . 2006) (c i t i ng Tex. C iv. Prac
. & R em . C ode A nn. § 16. 003( a) (V er non 2 0 0 2) )

. Al t hough t he Texas lim ita tio n s p e r io da p p lie s , fe d e r a l la w g o v e r n s w h e n M a d is ’ s c la im a c c r u e d
. S ee Har r i s v . Hegm ann , 1 9 8 F .3 d1 5 3 , 1 5 7 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). U n d e rfe d e r a l la w , a c l ai m ge ner al l y ac c r ues “t h e m om en tt he pl ai nt i f f be c om es aw ar e thathe has suff ered an i nj u ry or h as suf f i ci en ti n f

orm ati on t o kn ow tha the h as been inju r e d ” a n dth a tth e r e is ac o n n e c t io n b e t w e e n h is i nju r ya n dt h e d e fe n d a n t ’s
a cti on s . P i ot row skiv. C i ty of Hou st on , 237 F. 3d 567, 576 ( 5t h C i r . 2001) (in te r n a l q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n dcit a tio n o m itt e d). T h e s ta tu te o f lim ita t i o n s is t ol l ed w h i l e a pri soner fu lf i l l s 42 U
. S

. C

. § 1997 e’ s adm i n i st rat ive exh au st i on
r e q u ir e m e n t. SeeWrig h t v. Ho lli ngsw o rth , 2 6 0 F .3d 3 5 7 , 3 5 9 ( 5 t h C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). T h e di st ri ctcourtcor rect l y determ i n ed tha t M a d is’ s c l ai m s are t i m eba r r e d. Eve n a s s um i ng t hatt he s t at ut e o f l i m i t at i o ns di d no ts t ar trun n i ng until M adi s’ s f

i nal adm i ni st r at ive gr i evanc e w as deni ed o n F ebr uary 14, 2006,N o. 09- 20062

4 th e tw o -y e a r p e r io d e x p ir e d in F e b r u a r y 2 0 0 8 , s o m e te n m o n th s b e fo r e M a d is f i l e d thi s l awsuiti n Dec e m ber 2 008. M ad i s no ne t he l e s s a r gue s t hatt he l i m i t at i ons peri od shoul d be equi t abl y t oll ed be c ause he w as i n A dm i ni st r at ive Segr egat i on duri ng t he rel evantperi od. M adi s s t at es t hat“ [i] n A d Seg, w e c an g e tn o l e g a la s s i s t a n c e , t h e O f f i c e r s w h o d e l i v e r [] t h e b o o k s c o u l dn o tg iv e me a n ya s s is ta n c e w ith th e p r e p a r a tio n o f le g a l d o c u m e n ts to p u r s u e th is cla im .” M adi s f urt herw r i t es t hathe “had bee n di l i gent l y pur suin g [hi s] r i ght s, ” as dem ons t r at ed byhi s unsucc es sf ulat t em ptt o o bt ai n co unselt hro ugh t he Texas C iv il R ig h ts P r oje c t. M adi s has no ts how n gr ounds f or equ i t abl e t oll i ng. Becaus e the Texas
s t at ut e o f

l i m i t at i o ns i s borrowedi n § 1 98 3 c as e s , Te xa s ’ s e quit ab l e t o l l i ng p r in c ip le s a p p ly
. S ee R ot el la v. Pederson , 1 4 4 F .3d 8 9 2 , 8 9 7 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). N e i t h e rM a d is ’ s la c ko f r e p r e s e n ta tio n n o rh is a tt e m p t t o a c q u ir e co u n s e l is
s u ff i c i e n t t o to ll th e lim ita tio n s p e r io du n d e rT e x a s la w . S ee K el l y v. C i ty of Wich itaF

a lls , 6 5 F. A pp’x 50 8 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 3) (unpub l i s he d) (f i ndi ng no g r o unds f o re quit ab l e t o l l i ng unde rTe xa s l aw w he n pl ai nt i f f “ w as una bl e t o o bt ai n t he
se rv ice s o f a la w y e r to p u rs u e h is cla im s”); R o b in so n v. D a lla s Po lice D ep t. , 275 F
. 3d 1 080 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 1) (unpub l i s he d) (r ej e c t i ng ar gum e nt“t hatl i m i t at i o ns sh ou l dbe eq u i tab l y toll edu n d er T ex a s l a w be ca u se [a p ris o n e r w a s] i l l i tera te and bec ause he s oughtthe as si st ance of f ourdif f er entat t or neys w ho s houl d have bee n pro t ec t i ng hi s r i ght s” )

. Furt her m or e, pl ac em enti n adm i ni st r at ive s e gr e g a ti o n o rs o lit a ryc o nf i nem enti s gener all y notgr ounds f oreq ui t abl e t ol l i ng. See, e . g. , Mi l ler v. Marr , 141 F
. 3d976 , 978 ( 10th C i r. 199 8) (h ol di n g l i m i t ed l ibr ar y ac c e s s i ns uf

f i c i e ntt o e s t ab l i s h e xt r ao r di nar y c i r c um s t anc e s w ar r ant i ng e q u ita b le to llin g); S cha ef er v. S t ack , 64 1 F. 2d 22 7, 22 8 ( 5t h Ci r . 19 81 ) (ho l di ng unde rFl o r i dal aw t hati m pr i s o nm e nt , e ve n s o l i t ar y c o nf i ne m e ntw i t ho ut
a d e q u a te a c c e s s to ala w lib r a r y , d o e s n o t t o ll s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s ); Li ndo v. L eFever , 1 93 F. Supp

. 2 d 6 59 , 6 63 ( E. D
. N
. Y. 2 00 2) (f i ndi ng t hatt ran sfersN o. 09- 20062

5 betw een pri son faci l i t i es, sol i t ary confi n em en t , loc kd ow n s, an d rest ri ct ed access t o t he l aw l ibr ar y do n otquali f y as e xtr ao r di nar y c i r c um s t anc e s w ar r ant i ng eq u i tab l e tolli n g). A l th ou gh w e h a ve fou n dn o T ex a s d ecisi on s d i rectly on po i n t, th e fa c to f

M a d is ’ s a d m in is tr a tiv e s e g r e g a tio n d o e s n o t c h a n g e o u re q u ita b le t oll i ng anal ys i s, es pec i al l y w h er e, as her e, M adi s’ s onl y ar gum enti s t hat
a d m i n i strative se gr eg a ti on affected h i s ac cess to cou n sel, w h i ch i s cl ea rl y n ot a groun d f

or equi t able t o ll in gun der T exas l aw . Th ou gh federalcourt s c an al so “fa sh i on the i r ow n tol l i n g p rov i sion [s] i n ex cep ti on a lsi tu a ti on s, ” Slackv. Carpen t er , 7 F
. 3d418 , 420 ( 5th C i r. 199 3) (per curi am ) ( qu ot ati on an d ci t ati on om i t t ed), M ad i s’ s “u n fam i l i ari t y w i t h t h e l egal process [ an d] l ack of representat i on ” are not g rou n ds f or equi t able t ol l i n g u n der federall aw ei t h er. B a rrow v. New O rlean s S

. S

. A s s 'n , 9 32 F. 2d4 73 , 4 78 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 1)

. The di st ri ctcourtw as cor rectt o di sm i ss M ad i s’ s c ase as f rivol ou s. CO NC L US I ON T h e 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.