Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould 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 UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 50764 Su m m ar yC al endar ANT HONYW R OB ER S ON, Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant
v. RO N AL D D EA RL E; BU D D Y M EY ER ; M AR G O F RA I SER ; STAN H I BB S; STA N LE Y L K N EE ; RO BE RT TRAVI S, D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A pp eal s f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e W est ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 1: 09- C V
- 21 B e fo r e W IE N E R , D e M O S S , a n dS O U T H W IC K , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R IA M: * A n t h on y W . R oberson, T exas pri soner # 838 2 8 9 , a p pea l s t h e di st ri ct c o u r t ’ s d i s m i s s a lo f

h i s 4 2 U. S . C. § 1 9 8 3 c o m p l a i n ta s f r iv o l o u s u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 (e ). H e a r g u e s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d in co n c lu d in gth a t h is c o m p la in t w a s n o t t im e l yfi l e d . W e re v ie w fo ra n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . S ee S t an ley v. F

ost er , 4 6 4 F .3d 5 6 5 , 5 6 8 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 12, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-50764 Document: 00511108156 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/12/2010N o. 09- 50764

2 T h e st atute of

l i m i t ati on s app l i cabl e i n t h e i n st an t case i s borrow ed f rom th a t a p p lic a b le to T e x a s p e r s o n a l inju r ycla im s , w h ic h is tw o y e a r s . I d. Any r e le v a n t t o llin gp r o v is io n s o f T e x a s la w a ls o a r e a p p lic a b le . Jackson v. Joh n son , 950 F . 2d263 , 265 ( 5th C i r. 1 992 ) . H ow ever, “t h e a ccr u ald ate of a § 198 3 cau se of act i on i s a questi on of federall aw t h at i s n ot r es olved by r ef er enc e t o st a te l a w . ” W

a lla cev. K

a to , 5 4 9 U .S . 3 8 4 , 3 8 8 (2 0 0 7 ). U n d e rfe d e r a l la w , acla im gen eral l y accrues “t h e m om en tthe pl ai n t i f f b ecom es aw are t h at he ha s s u f fered an i nj ur y o rha s s uf

f i c i e nti nf

o r m at i o n t o kno w t hathe ha s been inj ur e d” a nd t h at th ere i s a c on n ect i on betw een hi s i nj u ry an d th e defen da n t ’ s act i on s. P i ot row skiv. C i ty of Ho u st on , 237 F. 3d 567, 576 ( 5t h C i r . 2001) (i nt er nal q u o ta tio n m a r k s a n dcit a tio n o m itt e d). Robe r s on ’ s asser t i o n t hathi s c aus e o f a c t i o n di d no ta c c r ue unt i lt he D ec em ber2008 di sm i ss alof hi s “ r em ai ni n g” r obbe r y c ause i s w i t houtfac t ual s u p p o r t . R o b e r s o n ’ s o w n p l e a d i n g s i n d i c a t e t h a ti n J a n u a r y2 0 0 5 , h e b e c a me aw are t h at he “h adbett er d os o m e thi n g” becau se t h e defen da n t s had deter m i n ed t o de ny hi m t he pr ope r t y. R obe r so n’ s c l ai m thus ac c r ued, at t he l at es t , att hat tim e . SeePi ot row s ki , 237 F. 3d at576. Ass um i ng, a r gue ndo , t hatt he c o nt i nui ng t o r tdoc t r i ne i s ava i l ab l e i n t he i ns t antfac t ualand p r o c e dur als c e nar i o , w e r ej e c tRob e r s o n’ s a r gum e ntt hatt he d efen d a n ts’action s con sti tu te d a c o n ti n u i n g tort. T h e se i zu re of h i s p rop erty w as as i ngl e a c ta nd it s c o nt i nue d r e t e nt i o n was m e r e l y an “ i l le f fe c t” o f t he o r ig in a l a c t. R o b e r s o n ’ s re lia n c e o n th e d o c tr in e o f fr a u d u le n t c o n c e a lm e n t fa ils becau se even a ccept i n g R oberson’ s assert i on tha tthe defenda n t s h ave con spi red t o concealhi s ow n ershi p ri gh t s t o t h e property, t h ey di d n otconcealt h e factof th e ird e p r iv a tio n o f th e p r o p e r ty . R obe r so n’ s ar gum entt ha t d i sm i ss alof hi s c om pl ai ntunder § 1 915 w as e r r o rb e c a u s e h e p a idap a r tia l filin gfe e is w ith o u t m e r it. S im ila r ly , h is ar gum entt hatappl i c at i on o f t he Pri so n L i t i gat i on R ef or m A c t(PL R A) w as i n ap propri ate i s w i t h ou tm eritbecau se § 191 5( e) ( 2) ( B ) (i) “requ i res di sm i ssalof Case: 09-50764 Document: 00511108156 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/12/2010N o. 09- 50764

3 frivo l ou s IF P action s ev en if th eyare bro u gh t byn on -p r is o n e rplain tiffs. ” W e a ls o n o te th a t fo llo w in gth e e n a c tm e n t o f § 1 9 1 5 (e ), ad is m is s a l a s fr iv o l o u s in an I FP pr o c e e di ng s ho ul d b e de e m e d a d i s m i s s alw i t h pr ej udi c e unl e s s t he d is tr ic t c o u r t sp e c ifie s th a t th e d is m is s a l is w ith o u t p r eju d ic e . Mart s v. Hi n es , 117 F . 3d150 4, 150 6 ( 5th C i r. 199 7) ( en ban c) . A ccor di n gl y, t h e di sm i ssalof R o b e rs o n ’ s c om pl ai n tw i t h prej u di ce un der § 1915 ( e) w as not an a bu se of di s c r e t i o n. AF F I RMED. Case: 09-50764 Document: 00511108156 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/12/2010