### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 30801 Summary Calendar

EDDIE F. ARMSTRONG , Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.
RONAL SERPAS; LESTER C. MARSHALL , Defendant s
- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:15

- CV

- 808

Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis , Louisiana prisoner Eddie F. Armstrong appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) , as time

- barred

. Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals are review ed de novo , “accepting all well

- pleaded facts as true and viewing those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff ”

. Groden v. City

* Pursuant to 5 th Cir. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 th Cir. R. 47.5.4

. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 21, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-30801 Document: 00513767558 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2016No. 15

- 30801

2 of Dallas , 826 F.3d 280, 283 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting Hines v. Alldredge , 783 F.3d 197, 200

– 0 1 (5th Cir. 2015)). Armstrong c ontends a New Orleans police off ic er violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force in the course of arresting him.
Fo r § 1983 claims, the statute of limitations is “‘the forum state’s personal

injury limitations period,’ which in Louisiana i s one year”. Smith v. Reg’l Transit Auth. , 827 F.3d 412, 421 (5th Cir. 2016). A rmstrong ’s claims accrued 12 February 2013, the date he alleges he was subjected to excessive force

. See Price v. City of San Antonio , 431 F.3d 890, 893 (5th Cir. 2005)

. He did not file his complaint , however, until January 2015

— well after the applicable one

year prescriptive period had run

. See Smith , 827 F.3d at 421

. B efore the magistrate judge, Officer Marshall and Superintendent Serpas sought dismissal based , inter alia , on the running of that period. (Armstrong only appeals his claims against Officer Marshall, the arresting officer, and not as to Serpas, the pol ice

- department superintendent.) In response, Armstrong asserted the period was tolled under the equitabl e
- tolling doctrine of contra non valentum , maintain ing he was not able to file this action because of the recovery time for his injuries and inadequate legal resources in prison. T he magistrate judge recommended dismissal, and the district court adopted t he magistrate judge ’ s report and recommendation

. Armstrong re

- urges his contra non valentum contentions. Under Louisiana law, however, the doctrine applies only in four circumstances: (1) where there was some legal cause which prevented the courts or thei r officers from taking cognizance of or acting on the plaintiff’s action; (2) where there was some condition coupled with a contract or connected with the proceedings which prevented the creditor from suing or acting; (3) where the debtor himself has done some act effectually to prevent the creditor from availing him self of his cause of action; or Case: 15-30801 Document: 00513767558 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2016No. 15

- 30801

3 (4) where the cause of action is n either known n or reasonably knowable by the plaintiff even though plaintiff’s ignorance is not induced by the defendant.

Marin v. Exxon Mobil Corp. , 48 So.3d 234, 245 (La. 2010 )

. The facts pleaded by Armstrong do not meet these criteria, and analogous con tentions have been deemed insufficient by our court

. See Felder v. Johnson , 204 F.3d 168, 171

– 72 (5th Cir. 2000) (equitable t olling in the AEDPA context) ; see also Boswell v. C laiborne Par

. Detention Ctr. , 629 F. App’x 580, 582 (5th Cir. 2015) (equitable tolling of § 1983 claims by a Louisiana prisoner )

. AFFIRMED. JUDGE HAYNES concurs only in the judgment. Case: 15-30801 Document: 00513767558 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/21/2016