### The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. ___________ No. 95-2052

___________ Lloyd Nelson White, * * Appellant, * * v. * * Larry Garrison, Investigator, * Arkansas State Police; Larry * Mills, Chief of Police, * Appeal from the United States Harrisburg, Arkansas, City * District Court for the Police Department; Scott Long, * Eastern District of Arkansas. Officer, Harrisburg, Arkansas, * City Police Department; Jimmy - * [UNPUBLISHED] Carter; Chester Cord, Deputy, * Poinsett County Sheriff's * Department; Steve Inboden, Deputy* Prosecuting Attorney, Poinsett * County Prosecutor's Office; * Wayne Mooney, Attorney, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: November 27, 1995 Filed: December 1, 1995

___________ Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

Ll oyd Nelson White appeals from the district court's dismissal o f 1 his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We affirm.

On Janu ary 5, 1995, White filed a section 1983 action against fiv e Arkansas state and local police officers, alleging they

### -2-

violate d his Fourth Amendment rights by searching the premises of hi s business and seizing his property while executin g an arrest warrant on May 16, 1989. White further contended two other defendants, public defender Mooney and prosecutor Inboden, conspired with the defendant police officer s to convince White that the search was legal and to obtain his guilty plea. The district court di smissed White's complaint with prejudice, concluding that the statute of limitations had run.

We review

de novo the district court's dismissal. See Alexander v. Peffer , 993 F.2d 1348, 1349 (8th Cir. 1993). Th e district court correctly de termined White's complaint was time-barred. The relevant Arkansa s limitatio ns period is three years. See Wilson v. Garcia , 471 U.S. 261 , 280 -81 (1985) (limitations period for § 1983 action is state's persona l injury statute of limitations); Ark. Code Ann. 16-56-105 (Michie 1994)

. White knew or should have known his constitution al rights were violated at the time of the 1989 search; therefore his suit filed more than five years late r falls outside the applicable limitations period. See Nasim v

. Warden, Maryland House of Corrections , 64 F.3d 951, 955 (4th Cir. 1995 ) (accrual of civil rig hts action governed by federal law and determined by when plaintiff knew or had reason to know of harm constituting basis for action); see also Mo ore v. McDonald , 30 F.3d 616, 620-21 (5th Cir. 1994) (§ 1983 claim for an illegal search accrued on day of search)

. Furthermore, White did not plead facts that would merit tolling th e limitations period. See Board of Regents of Uni v. of New York v. Tomanio , 446 U.S. 478, 484 (1980) (tolling for § 1983 claim determined by stat e law); Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-56-116, 16-56-120 (Mi chie 1994) (statute tolled onlyif plaintiff under disability at time action accrued or defendan t acted to prevent plai ntiff from commencing action); Roberts v. Dillon , 15 F.3d 113, 115 (8th Cir. 1994).

### -3- We note even if White's claim was not time-barred, he could no t pursu e a section 1983 claim on the ground that defendants conspired t o elicit hi s guilty plea and deprive him of rights of judicial process i n connectio nwith his conviction. See Heck v. Humphrey , 114 S. Ct. 2364 , 2372 (1994).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

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