### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-30942 Summary Calendar

MICHAEL WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. MALISE PRIETO, Clerk o f Court; BETTY VENTURELLA, C.S.R., Certified Reporter, 22nd Judicial District Court; SCOTT GARDNER, Assistant District Attorney, Parish of St. Tammany, State of Louisiana, Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:10-CV-2541

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and BENAVIDES and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Michael Walker, Louisiana prisoner # 93207, appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous. An in forma pauperis complaint may be dismissed pur s u a nt to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A(b)(1) if it is frivolous. A claim is frivolous U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May2, 201 2 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-30942 Document: 00511842092 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2012No. 11-30942

if it does not have an arguable basis in fact or law. Gonzales v. Wyatt , 157 F.3d 1016, 1019 (5th Cir. 1998). Walk e r cl aimed that Defendants intentionally altered the transcript of th e 1994 guilty plea hearing involving his convictions for possession of cocaine and aggravated battery. To the extent that his claim would implicate the validity of his criminal convictions, which have not been invalidated, the district court did not err by dismissing Walker’s § 1983 complaint as barred by Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994), and therefore frivolous. In the alte r n a t iv e , the district court did not err by dismissing Walker’s § 1983 complaint as time barred and therefore frivolous. “In § 1983 claims, the applicable statute of li m i t a t i o ns is that which the state would apply in an analogous action in its courts. In accordance with applicable Louisiana law, we apply a one-year liberative prescriptive period to these claims.” Bourdais v. New Orleans City , 485 F.3d 294, 298 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal citation omitted) (citing LA
. C IV
. C O D E AN N
. art. 34 92). Therefore, contrary to Walker’s argument, the district cour t c o rrectly applied the one-year prescriptive period in Louisiana Civil Code article 3492. A § 1983 claim accrues “when a plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.” Harris v. Hegmann , 198 F.3d 153, 157 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). W a l k e r concedes that his claim accrued in 2004. He has failed to establish that he was entitled to tolling of the prescriptive period for the time period during which he

was exhausting administrative remedies. Cf. id. at 157-58. Therefore, Walker’s § 1983 complaint was time barred as he did not file suit until 2010, well after the one-year prescriptive period expired. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 11-30942 Document: 00511842092 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2012