P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30632 C onfer enc e Cal endar J AMES W GL EA S ON Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant
v. GUF F EYP AT T I S ON; S AB I NE P AR I S H; W a r d e n DI L LAR D 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 U SD C N o. 1: 08- C V
- 194 B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d JO L L Yan d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Jam es W . G l eas on, Loui si ana pri so ner # 45246 7, appeal s t he di sm i ss alas f rivol ou s pu rsuan tt o 28 U . S . C . §§ 19 15(e) ( 2) ( B ) (i) a n d 19 15A (b) ( 1) of hi s t i m ebarred 42 U . S . C . § 1983 com pl ai n t . W e revi ew the d i st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssalf or a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . S e eG o n za le s v . W y a tt, 157 F . 3d 1 016 , 101 9- 20 (5t h C i r. 1 9 9 8 ). United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30632

2 N o specif

i ed federalst atute of l i m i t ati on s exi st s f or § 198 3 acti on s; t he r e f o r e , fe de r alc o ur t s b orrow the f o r um s t at e ’ s pe r s o nali nj ur y l i m i t at i o ns p e r io d . R od rigu ez v. Hol m es , 9 6 3 F .2 d7 9 9 , 8 0 3 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). L o u is ia n a C iv il C o d e a r tic le 3 4 9 2 ’ s o n e -y e a r p r e s c r ip tiv e p e r io da p p lie s to § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n s . E lzy v. R oberson , 86 8 F . 2 d79 3 , 79 4 ( 5 th C i r. 19 8 9 ). G l ea son arg u es p u r s u a n t t o Har di n v . St r aub , 4 90 U . S. 5 36 ( 19 89 ) , t hatt he o ne - ye ar s t at ut e o f l i m i t at i o ns sho ul d be t ol l ed unt i lhe i s r el eas ed f r om c ust ody. Ha rd in h eld t h a t afed era lcou rt ap p l yin g a state sta tu te of li m i tati on s to an i n m ate’ s f

ederalcivi l ri gh t s act i on shou l d give ef fectt o t h e st ate’ s s t atutor y pro vi si on t ol l i ng t he li m i t at i ons per i od f orpr i so ner s. 490 U . S. at542- 44. L o u is ia n a , h o w e v e r , d o e s n o t h a v e as ta tu te to th a t e ffe c t. L am bertv. Tou ps , 745 S o. 2d 730, 733 (La. C t . A pp. 1999) ;Hampton v. Kroger, Co. , 658 So. 2d 209 , 2 1 1 (L a . C t . A p p . 1 9 9 5 ). G le a s o n h a s t h e r e fo r e n o t s h o w n t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’s t i m e - ba rde t e r m i nat i o n t o ha ve b e e n a n a bus e o f di s c r e t i o n. G le a s o n ’ s a p p e a l is w ith o u t a r g u a b le m e r it a n dis f r iv o lo u s . S ee How ard v . Ki ng , 7 0 7 F .2 d2 1 5 , 2 1 9 -2 0 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ). Itis th e r e fo r e d is m is s e d . S ee5 TH C IR . R. 4 2. 2. The di s t r i c tco ur t ’ s di s m i s s aland t he di s m i s s alof hi s appe alc o unt a s tw o s tr ik e s fo rp u r p o s e s o f § 1 9 1 5 (g). Se e Ad e p eg b a v . Ham m o ns , 103 F . 3d 383 , 387
- 88 (5t h C i r. 199 6) . G l eason is cau t i on ed that if he accum u l ates t h ree s tr ik e s , h e w ill n o lo n g e rb e a ll o w e dto p r o c e e din fo r m a p a u p e r is in a n yciv il act i on or ap pea l f

i l ed w h i l e h e i s i n carcer ated or detai n ed i n an y faci l i t y u n l ess h e “is inim m in e n t d a n g e r o f se rio u s p h y sica l i nju ry .” § 1 9 1 5 (g). AP P EA L DI S M I S S ED ; S ANC T I ON WARNI NG I S S UED .