Court Opinion

ID: 9411566
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-27 00:01:58.974342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:07.174590
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30561        Document: 00516834798             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/26/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-30561
                                    Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                    ____________                                     July 26, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   William R. Abbott,                                                                 Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Loretta Otis-Sanders; Shelley Power; Shelia Lyons; N.
   Patterson; United States Bureau of Prisons; Sekou
   Ma’at,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 2:22-CV-1271
                     ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         William R. Abbott, federal prisoner # 57819-083, filed an action under
   Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
   388 (1971), asserting that the defendants had violated the Prison Rape
   Elimination Act, 34 U.S.C. § 30301, et seq. (PREA), and his Eighth

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30561      Document: 00516834798            Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/26/2023

                                      No. 22-30561

   Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment by ignoring and
   failing to act upon his complaints that he had been sexually harassed by his
   cellmate. The district court dismissed the complaint as time-barred. No
   abuse of discretion has been shown. See Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 157
   (5th Cir. 1999); Jacobsen v. Osborne, 133 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 1998).
          We need not reach the issue of whether Bivens applies to the particular
   facts of this case. As the Supreme Court has explained, Bivens is a “more
   limited federal analog to [42 U.S.C.] § 1983.” Hernandez v. Mesa, 140 S. Ct.
   735, 747 (2020)(internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, we refer to §1983
   for aid in determining issues such as applying the statute of limitations. See,
   e.g., Alford v. United States, 693 F.2d 498, 499 (5th Cir. 1982); see also Kelly v.
   Serna, 87 F.3d 1235, 1238 (11th Cir. 1996).
          Abbott argues that the district court should have applied the four-year
   limitation period of 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a). Under the analogous § 1983,
   Abbott had one year in which to file his complaint. See Jacobsen, 133 F.3d at
   319. Insofar as Abbott sought to raise a stand-alone claim under the Prison
   Rape Elimination Act (PREA), he cites no case in support of his position that
   the PREA established a private action for such a claim.
          Abbott contends that the limitation period was tolled while he
   exhausted his administrative remedies. See Harris, 198 F.3d at 157-58. Even
   if we assume that the limitation period was tolled during the 61 days when
   Abbott’s untimely prison grievance proceeding was pending, the limitation
   period still elapsed long before Abbott filed his complaint. See id. at 157-58.
          The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Abbott’s motion for
   appointment of counsel is DENIED.

                                               2