## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 97-2789

___________ Walter Garrett, * * Appellant, * * v. * On Appeal from the United States * District Court for the L. Clarke, Sgt.; D. Epps, #144; * Eastern District of Missouri. F. West, Maj. #63; Pinelawn * Police Department; City of * Pinelawn, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: April 27, 1998 Filed: June 26, 1998

___________ Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, FAGG, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________ RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. Walter Garrett claims three City of Pine Lawn, Missouri, police officers illegally searched his home in violation of the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court dismissed Garrett & s complaint against the officers and the City of Pine Lawnas barred by the statute of limitations. We conclude that the complaint wa s timely, and reverse the District Court & s dismissal as to the individual police officers, but we affirm the dismissal as to the City of Pine Lawn on other grounds.-2- I.

Garrett claims the search occurred on September 30, 1991. At some point after this date, Garrett became an inmate in a Missouri prison. On September 23, 1996, he mailed his complaint and an applicati on to proceed in forma pauperis from prison to the District Court. The District Court clerk & s office stamped the complaint “received” on Sep tember

24, 1996, but returned it to Garrett with a letter stating that he had no t submitted a certified copy of his prison account statement as required by 28 U.S.C

. § 1915, as amended by the Prison Litig ation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-134, § 804 (a)(1)(F), 110 Stat. 1321, 1321-73 (1996). Garrett responded by mailing hi s complaint and an uncertified accou nt statement to the District Court. The District Court clerk & s office received the complaint on October 2, 1996, and again returned it with instructi ons to supply a certified statement. On October 16, 1996, Garrett mailed th e complaint and a

certified account statement, which the District Court received the next day. The complaint bears both October 17, 1996, and September 24 , 1996, date stamps. The Dis trict Court concluded that Garrett had not filed his complaint until October 17, 1996, w hen the District Court clerk received his complaint accompanied by a certified prison account statement, and dismissed the complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), finding it barred by the five -year Missouri statute of limitations. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120(4) (1994); Chandler v. Presi ding Judge , 838 F.2d 977, 978-79 (8th Cir. 1988).

II.

We conc lude that the District Court erred in finding the complaint barred by the statute of limitations. For p urposes of the statute of limitations, the filing of a complaint commences a federal cause of action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3; Lyons v. Goods on , 787 F.2d 411, 412 (8th Cir. 1986) (per curiam). The Prison Litigation Reform Act does not say that a prison acc ount statement must be supplied when the complaint is filed. Instead, the prisoner should be allowed to file the complaint, and then supply a prison-3-

accoun t statement within a reasonable time. Cf. Henderson v. Norris , 129 F.3d 481 , 484-85 ( 8th Cir. 1997) (per curiam) (district court to notify prisoner to supply priso n account statement within thirty days of filing appeal in forma pa uperis; court can provide
more time for good cause). Because Garrett presented his complaint to the Distric t Court clerk for filing before the statute of limitations ran, we conclude his action i s timely.

The defendants argue that Garrett did not allege that he suffered any persona l injury or a ctual damages, but instead asserted that his wife and mother, who wer e present during the search, suffered e motional injury. We agree with the defendants that Garrett may not base his Section 1983 action on a violation of the rights of third parties. See M iner v. Brackney , 719 F.2d 954, 956 (8th Cir. 1983) (per curiam), cert. denied , 467 U.S. 1259 (1984). It is clear, however, that Garrett claims a violation of his own Fourth Amendment rights through an illegal search of his home. If Garrett proves this claim, he is entitled to a finding of liability and nominal dam ages even if he cannot prove actual damages. See Westborough M all, Inc. v. City of Cape Girardeau , 794 F.2d 330, 339 (8th Cir. 1986), cert. denied , 480 U.S. 918 (1987).

We affirm the District Court & s dismis sal with respect to the City of Pine Lawn. A city is not vicariously liable under Section 1983 for the acts of its employees. Se e Parrish v. Luckie , 963 F.2d 201, 204 ( 8th Cir. 1992). To impose liability on the City of Pin e Lawn, Garrett must “identify either an official municipal policy or a widesprea d custom or practice that caused [his] injury.” See Springdale Educ. Ass & n v. Springdale Sch. Dist. , 133 F.3d 649, 6 51 (8th Cir. 1998). Garrett & s complaint fails to state a claim against the City of Pine Lawn because it merely names it as a defendant withou t identifying any such policy, custom, or practice.
Accordingly, we reverse t

he District Court & s dismissal as to the individual police officers, but affirm the dismissal as to the City of Pine Lawn. We remand to the District Court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.-4-

A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.