FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J ULY 19, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1661 4 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-02688 -CV -BBM- 1 MAURIC E MCKENZIE, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant, ve rs us U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, D RU G EN FO RC E MEN T A G EN CY , e t. a l. D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 19 , 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , BI RC H and C A RN E S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

Maur ic e Mc K en zi e, apr iso ne r pr oc ee din g pr o se and i n f orm a paupe ri s, ap pe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al of his c ivi l a ct ion , br ough t purs uant t o B ive ns v. S ix Unkno w n A ge nts of the F ed er al Bure auof

N ar co tic s, 403 U . S. 388 , 91 S . Ct . 19 99 (19 71 ), fo r fai lu re t o c om pl y wit h t he ap pl ic ab le st atut e o f li m it at io ns . Beca use the district court correctly applied Georgia’ s two-y ear personal injury lim itatio ns p er iod

to Mc K en zi e’ s B ive ns c la im , and b ec au se Mc K en zi e did not f ile his c om pla int w ith in this pe ri od, the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y dis m iss ed

his a ct ion pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 191 5A. A ccordingly , w e A FFI RM. I. BACKG ROUND On 8 Se ptem

ber 2003, McK enzie, a prisoner incarc erate d in Alabam a, filed a com plaint in the district court, nam ing as defendants Jo hn Ashcroft, the U. S. A tto rn ey G en er al ; R obe rt

C. Bo nne r, the A dm ini str at or of the D ru g E nf

or ce m en t A ge nc y ( “ D E A ”) ; G ar fi el d H am

m ond, Jr . , the spe ci al A ge nt i n c harg e of the A tlanta D ivi sio n O ff

ic e of the D E A ; and tw o “ JohnD oe ” D E Aa ge nts a ssi gne d to the A tlanta

of fi ce . Mc K en zi e al le ge d inhis c om pla int that, on 2 5 M ar ch199 6, he use d aone -w ay

ti ck et he pur ch as ed

w ithc as h to tr av el f

ro m S av an nah, G eo rg iato Miam i, F lorida, via A tlanta. H e stated that he w as traveling under an assum ed nam e, “ E m anue l A ske w . ” R1 -1 a t 3. Upon his arr iva l at the A tlanta a ir port, McK enzie w as apprehended by the John Doe agents. A fter the a gents int erview ed3

McKe nz ie , th ey

sea rch edhi m

an d d is co ve redth athe po ss es se d $ 9,5 80 . McK enzie alleged that he w as then told h e w as fre e to leave, and he wa s never advised that th e m oney

wa s being seized for any purpose or that he was suspected of c ri m ina l a ct ivi ty . A ft er

he w as r el ea se d, Mc K en zi e al le ge d th at the a ge nts exam ined the currency

with the aid of a drug detector dog. McK enzie claim ed that the dog alerted to the m oney , and the currency wa s seized, but he w as never inf orm ed of the se iz ur e or

that the a ge nts sus pe ct ed the m one y

w as r el at ed

to dr ugs. Mc K en zi e al le ge d th at the a ge nts , a ft er

c ondu ct ing an in ve sti ga tio n, discovered that he was the sam e person who had been detained and who had identified him self as E m anuel Askew , but the agents nevertheless failed to notify him that the funds had b een seized and that forf eiture procee ding s had com m enced. By

27 March 1996, McK enzie claim ed, the a gents had o btained inf orm at ionr eg ar din g hi s date of bir th, r ac e, na tio na l or igi n, phy sic al de sc ri pti on, ad dr es s, soc ia l se curi ty

num be r, and p hone num

be r. H e m ai nta ine d th at

on 1 Jul y 1996 , aD ec laratio n of

F or fe iture w as iss ue d inr el at ionto the se iz ed f unds , indicating that $9,580 had b een seized f rom “ Maurice M cK enzie a/k/a E m anuel Ask ew,” b ut he was n ev er n ot ifi edof t he pro ceed in gs .4

Mc K en zi e ra ise d f

ive c la im s inr el at ionto the f or fe iture , inc lud ing vio la tio ns o f his F if

th A m en dm en t du e pr oc es s r igh ts and v iol at ionof his F ourth A m en dm en t r igh ts. H e soug ht c om pe nsator y dam ag es , in the a m ount

of $25 , 000 as to ea chof

the f ive de fe ndants ; punit ive dam ag es in the a m ount of $10 , 000, a s to each of the f

ive defendants; and “ other relief as it m ay appear P laintiff is entitled.” R1 -1 at 8 . Upon the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r eque st, Mc K en zi e cl ar if ie d hi s c om

pla int , and deleted John Ashcrof

t as a defe ndant. H e re iterated his claim s against Bonn er, Ham m on d, an d t he Jo hn Doe a ge nt s an d re qu es te d re li ef p ur su an t t o 1 8 U.S.C. § 1346 . T he dis tr ic t c ourt, int er pr et ing Mc K en zi e’ s c la im s a s aBi ve ns a ct ion , ini tia lly de te rm ine d un de r 28 U . S. C. § 19 15Athat the sui t w as not f ri vol ous, and allowed it to proceed. T he district court directed that the defendants be served sum m ons in r el at ionto Mc K en zi e’ s su it. S ev er al m onths l at er , in re la tio n to McK enzie’ s inqu iry

about the status of his suit, the governm ent attorney re pr es en tin g th e D E Aand the D ep ar tm en t of Jus tic e fi le d astatus r ep ort, ind ic at ing that no ne of

the ind ivi dua lly -n am ed

de fe ndants ha d be ense rv ed w itha summ ons or a com

plaint. T he governm ent also notedthat Bonner had retired a s adm ini str at or

of the D E Ain 1993 , and w as not the a dm ini str at or

dur ing the e ve nts th atMcKen zi e al le ge d.5

Be fo re the nam ed

de fe ndants w er e se rv ed , the dis tr ic t c ourt r ec onsi de re d it s earlier frivolity determ ination , c onclud ed that McK enzie’ s claim s wer e tim eba rred , andsu a sp on te di sm is se d h is co m pl ai nt pu rs ua nt to 28 U.S.C. § 1 91 5A. T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ea sone d th at it w as appare nt f

ro m the c om pla int that M cK en zi e could prov e no set of fac ts that would avoidthe statute of lim itations bar beca use a fe d er al co u rt co n s i d er i n g Bi v en s ac t i o n s i s re qu i re dt o ap p l y t h e f o ru m s t at e’s statut e of li m itatio ns f

or pe rs ona l i nj ur

y , and i n th e ins tant c as e, Mc K en zi e did not fi le his c om

pla int w ith in the appl ic ab le tw o- y ear statut e of li m itatio ns. II. D ISCU SSION On appeal, McK enzie ar gues that the dis m issal of his com plaint as tim ebarred is contrar

y to the establish ed rec ord. H e notes that the dist rict court originallyconcluded that hi s action was not frivolous, but su bsequent ly dism issed his a ct iona s ti m e- barr ed . H e the n arg ue s th at w ri tte n no tic e to e ac h party w ho appears to have an interest in the seized property is required in forfe iture pr oc ee din gs. H er e, Mc K en zi e co nte nds that the gov er nm en t f ai le d to pr ovi de suf fi ci en t no tic e of

the f or fe iture pr oc ee din gs, and, thu s, de pr ive d hi m of his co nst itu tio na l r igh ts. F urthe r, he c ont en ds tha t whe n no tic e is i na de quate ade fa ult j udgm ent shou ld be void ed, a nd, rely ing up on a Fifth Circuit decision, he states that “ ‘ [c ] onst itu tio na lly

ine ff ec tiv e not ic e re nde rs f

or fe iture or de rs voi d be ca use6

the c ourt l ac ks j ur isd ic tio n to e nte r the m . ’ ” Appe llant’ s B r. a t 4 (quot ing Kad on sk y

v. Un it edSta te s, 2 16 F.3d49 9, 5 06 (5t h C ir. 2 00 0) ). W e re vie wde nov o qu es tio ns c onc er nin g th e ap pli catio n of

astatut e of lim itations . Harrison v. D igital Health Plan, 183 F.3d 1235 , 1238 (11th Cir. 19 99 ). Here, t he di st ric t co ur t d is m is se d M cKen zi e’s co m pl ai nt un de r § 1 91 5A, bu t d idno t s pe ci fy

whi ch su bs ect io n o f § 1 91 5A warran te d t he di sm is sa l. A lth oughw e ha ve state d th at dis m iss al s un de r § 19 15Af or f ai lur e to s ta te ac la im ar e re vie w ed

de nov o, se e L ea l v. G a. D ep ’ t of Co rr . , 254 F . 3d 1 276, 127 9 ( 11th Ci r. 200 1) , w e ha ve not

ind ic at ed w hic h st an dard

of r ev ie wgov er

ns f ri vol ity dis m iss al s un de r 28 U . S. C. § 19 15A . O the r ci rc uit s are spl it as to w he the r the co rr ec t st an dard

of r ev ie wf or af ri vol ity dis m iss al und er

§ 19 15Ais de nov o or ab use of dis cr et ion . C om

pare S hakur

v. S el sky , 391 F . 3d 1 06, 112 ( 2d C ir . 200 4) (d e novo ), w ithMart in v . S co tt, 156 F . 3d 5 78, 580 ( 5thCi r. 199 8) ( ab use of d i s cr et i o n ). As d i s cu s s edb el o w, h o we v er , u n d erei t h ers t an d ar d , M cK en zi e’s cl ai m f ai ls. Section 1915 A( a) r equires the district court to perform a scre ening review of any civil com

plaint filed bya prisoner against a governm ent official. Such co m pla int m ay be dis m iss ed

if it “ is f ri vol ous, m al ic iou s, or

f ai ls t o st at e a cl ai m uponw hic h r el ie f m ay

be gr an te d . . . . ” 28 U . S. C. § 19 15A (b )( 1) . W e ha ve r ule d,7

in th e co nt ex t o f an in for m a p aupe ris fri vo li ty det erm in at io n u nd er 2 8 U.S.C. § 1915 , that “ [t ] he e xpi ratio n of the statut e of

li m itatio ns i s an a ff

irm at ive de fe nse the e xis te nc e of

w hic h w ar

rants adis m iss al a s f

ri vol ous. ” Cl ar

k v. S ta te of Ge o rg i a P ar d o n s an dPa ro l es Bd ., 9 1 5 F. 2 d6 3 6 , 6 4 0 n .2 (1 1 t h Ci r. 1 9 9 0 ). We have e xpl ai ne d th at , “ [t ] o di sm iss apr iso ne r’ s c om pla int a s ti m e- barr ed

pr ior to se rv ic e, it m ust ‘ ap pe ar be y ond a doub t f

ro m the c om pla int it se lf that [ the pr iso ne r] c anpr ove no s et of f ac ts whic h w oul d avoi d astatut e of li m itatio ns bar. ’ ” H ughe s v. L ott , 350 F . 3d 1 157, 116 3 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) , c iti ng L ea l, 254 F . 3d at12 80 . ABi ve ns a ct ionis gove rn ed by the sam e statut e of

li m itatio ns tha t go ve rn s 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 a ct io ns . Kell y v. Se rn a, 87 F.3d12 35 , 12 38 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ). W e have he ld tha t the G eo rg iatw o- y ear pe rs ona l i nj ur y li m itatio ns p er iod , O. C.G .A . § 9-3-33, applies to § 19 83 actions in a G eorgia district court. M ullin ax v. McE lhenney , 817 F. 2d 71 1, 715-16 (11th Cir. 1987 );. The Ge orgia two-y ear pe rs on al in

jury lim it at io ns pe rio d, t he refo re, ap pl ie s t o M cKen zi e’s Bi ve ns cla im . K el ly , 87 F . 3d at 12 38. C ivi l r igh ts c la im s be ginto ac cr ue and the statut e of lim itatio ns b eg ins to run w he n th e pla int if f know s or

ha s r ea son to k

nowof the in jury that is th e b as is of t he act io n. Mu ll in ax , 81 7 F .2dat 7 16 .8

In the instant case, Mc Ke nzie asserts in his com plaint th at he w as ap pr eh en de d by

the Joh n D oe a ge nts , and the f or fe ite d f unds w er e se iz ed , on 2 5 March 1996. Mc Ke nzie does not sp ecify when he learned that the funds had b een fo rf ei te d, or w he n he dis co ve re d th at the a ge nts kne whis ide nti ty pr ior to the forfe iture proceedings but failed to notify him of the proceedings. H e does co nte nd, how ev er , that by 27 M ar ch199 6, the a ge nts kne whis r ea l i de nti ty and other personal inform ation, and on 1 Jul y 1996 , a De claration o f Forf

eiture w as iss ue d inr eg ar ds t o th e funds. A cc or din gly , a lth oughthe e xa ct da te of his dis co ve ry of the inj ur y is unc le ar

f ro m the r ec or d, Mc K en zi e ha d r ea son to k now of his injuries som etim e in 1996 . Mc Ke nzie filed his com plaint on 8 Septem

ber 2003 , sig nif

ic an tly lon ge r than tw o y ears a ft er the a lle ge d w ro ngf

ul a ct ion , and, th eref or e, in vi ol at io n o f th e ap pl ic ab le st atut e o f li m it at io ns . Mor eo ve r, Mc K en zi e’ s r el ianc e uponK ad onsk y is m isp la ce d be ca

use in that c as e the F if

th C ir cu it ad dr es se d adir ec t c ha lle nge to ina de quate not ic e in the co nte xt o f fo rf

ei tur e pr oc ee din gs, not

ase parate Bi ve ns a ct iona lle gin g c ivi l r igh ts vio la tio ns. F ina lly , to the e xte nt tha t M cK en zi e co nte nds the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in re vis iti ng i ts i nit ia l r

uli ng tha t hi s c om

pla int w as not f ri vol ous unde r § 19 15A , he ha s f ai le d to c ite to an y

auth or ity sup portin g th at

arg um en t. Mo re ove r, the9

w or din g of

§ 19 15Adoe s no t i ndi cate that a dis tr ic t c ourt m ay

onl y c ondu ct one re vie wof apr iso ne r’ s pr o se c ivi l a ct ion .

III. C ONC LUS ION For the fore goin g reasons, the district court did not err in determ ining that McK enzie’ s com

plaint was tim e-barr ed and dism issin g the com plaint un der § 1915 A . T he dis m iss al is AFFIRMED.