The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District

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City Police Department; Jimmy - * [UNPUBLISHED]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.

Lloyd Nelson White appeals from the district court's dismissal of

1

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We affirm.

On January 5, 1995, White filed a section 1983 action against five

Arkansas state and local police officers, alleging they
-2-

violated his Fourth Amendment rights by searching the premises of his

business and seizing his property while executing an arrest warrant on May

16, 1989. White further contended two other defendants, public defender

Mooney and prosecutor Inboden, conspired with the defendant police officers

to convince White that the search was legal and to obtain his guilty plea.

The district court dismissed 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). The district court correctly

determined White's complaint was time-barred. The relevant Arkansas

limitations period is three years. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261,

280-81 (1985) (limitations period for § 1983 action is state's personal

injury statute of limitations); Ark. Code Ann. 16-56-105 (Michie 1994).

White knew or should have known his constitutional rights were violated at

the time of the 1989 search; therefore his suit filed more than five years

later 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 rights action governed by federal law and determined by

when plaintiff knew or had reason to know of harm constituting basis for

action); see also Moore 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 the

limitations period. See Board of Regents of Univ. of New York v. Tomanio,

446 U.S. 478, 484 (1980) (tolling for § 1983 claim determined by state

law); Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-56-116, 16-56-120 (Michie 1994) (statute tolled

only if plaintiff under disability at time action accrued or defendant

acted to prevent plaintiff 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 not

pursue a section 1983 claim on the ground that defendants conspired to

elicit his guilty plea and deprive him of rights of judicial process in

connection with 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.