Metcalf v. Robertson ( 1995 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-60216
Conference Calendar
__________________
JAMES C. METCALF,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HELEN C. ROBERTSON, UNKNOWN
McMICHAEL, and MARGIE LANCASTER,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:94-CV-769WS
- - - - - - - - - -
June 30, 1995
Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
On December 28, 1994, Mississippi state prisoner James C.
Metcalf filed a pro se, in forma pauperis civil rights complaint,
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his civil rights. The
district court dismissed the complaint as frivolous, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(d), because all of the claims were time-barred.
There is no federal statute of limitations for § 1983
actions, and the federal courts borrow the forum state's general
personal injury limitations period. Henson-El v. Rogers, 923
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-60216
-2-
F.2d 51, 52 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1235 (1991). The
forum state of Mississippi has a limitations period of three
years. Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-49 (Supp. 1994). Although the
federal courts look to state law to determine the applicable
statute of limitations, they look to federal law to determine
when the cause of action accrues. Pete v. Metcalfe, 8 F.3d 214,
217 (5th Cir. 1993). Under federal law a cause of action accrues
at the time the plaintiff "knows or has reason to know of the
injury which is the basis of the action." Id. (internal
quotations and citation omitted).
Metcalf alleged that the defendants violated his
constitutional rights by subjecting him to a sanity examination
on May 2, 1990; by questioning him without giving him Miranda**
warnings on June 25, 1990; and by testifying falsely against him
on July 27, 1990. Although he alleges that he continues to be
harmed by the alleged violations, he has alleged no facts showing
any act or omission by any defendant after July 27, 1990.
Therefore, Metcalf knew, or reasonably should have known, of the
basis of his claim by July 27, 1990, and the district court
properly dismissed the complaint as time-barred.
AFFIRMED.
**
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).