Case Name: Renee Sheree O'CAROLAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tate PURYEAR; Todd Riffe; Roland Cunningham; John Does 1-10; William Don Mantague, Individually, and as Hays County Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-03
Citations: 70 F. App'x 751
Docket Number: No. 02-51286
Parties: Renee Sheree O’CAROLAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tate PURYEAR; Todd Riffe; Roland Cunningham; John Does 1-10; William Don Mantague, Individually, and as Hays County Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 70
Pages: 751–752

Head Matter:
Renee Sheree O’CAROLAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tate PURYEAR; Todd Riffe; Roland Cunningham; John Does 1-10; William Don Mantague, Individually, and as Hays County Sheriff, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 02-51286.
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 3, 2003.
Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Renee Sheree O'Carolan (O'Carolan) appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants on her civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Texas state court. She argues that her petition was timely filed and served under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which she contends should be applied in this case.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "apply to civil actions removed to the United States district courts from the state courts and govern procedure after removal." Fed. R. Crv. P. 81(c) (emphasis added); see also Matter of Meyerland, 960 F.2d 512, 520 (5th Cir.1992) (en banc) ("A case removed from state court simply comes into the federal system in the same condition in which it left the state system."). Accordingly, because O'Carolan's case originated in state court, and the events relevant to its timeliness occurred prior to its removal, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not govern the issue whether O'Carolan tolled the applicable statute of limitations while her case was pending in Texas state court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c); Meyerland, 960 F.2d at 520. Because O'Carolan's claim is time barred in state court, Hansler v. Mainka, 807 S.W.2d 3, 5 (Tex.App.Corpus Christi 1991), it is also time barred here.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.