Case Name: Terry A. RIVERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BATON ROUGE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; Eugene Smith, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-09-17
Citations: 75 F. App'x 287
Docket Number: No. 03-30391
Parties: Terry A. RIVERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BATON ROUGE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; Eugene Smith, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 75
Pages: 287–288

Head Matter:
Terry A. RIVERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BATON ROUGE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; Eugene Smith, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-30391.
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 17, 2003.
Terry Rivera, Sr., pro se, Collinston, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Terry A. Rivera, Louisiana prisoner # 121787, appeals the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, in which he alleges that a detective altered documents in order to bolster a criminal charge against him. The complaint was dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim because it was time-barred. "Where it is clear from the face of a complaint filed informa pauperis that the claims asserted are barred by the applicable statute of limitations, those claims are properly dismissed pursuant to § 1915." Gonzales v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1019-20 (5th Cir.1998) (emphasis added). Rivera contends an action he timely filed in state court is still pending and tolled the limitations period.
The applicable limitations (prescriptive period) for a § 1983 claim in Louisiana is one year. La. Civ.Code Ann. art. 3492; Elzy v. Roberson, 868 F.2d 793, 794-95 (5th Cir.1989). Rivera's action accrued when he knew, or had reason to know, of the injury or damages which forms the basis of his action. See Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 51 F.3d 512, 516 (5th Cir.1995). Therefore, because Rivera's complaint states he discovered the altered documents before his release from jail on 27 August 2000, his claim accrued, at the latest, on that date. Absent tolling of the one-year limitations period, his complaint is time-barred. See, e.g., Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany, 996 F.2d 786, 788 (5th Cir.1993) (in § 1983 action, federal courts borrow state law for tolling provisions).
Under Louisiana law, the pendency of an action can interrupt the limitations period. See New York Life Ins. Co. v. Deshotel, 142 F.3d 873, 883 (5th Cir.1998); La. Civ.Code Ann. art. 3462 & 3463. According to Rivera, the instant action contains "the same plaintiff, the same defendants, and the same incident complained of in his state suit", which is still pending. He also claims that his state action was filed on 22 August 2001, which was less than one year from the latest date Rivera knew of the altered documents.
Consequently, it is not clear from the face of Rivera's complaint that this action is time-barred.
VACATED; REMANDED
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.