IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-20182
Summary Calendar
O.D. VAN DUREN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ELIZABETH WATSON, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-97-CV-1664
December 29, 1998
Before JOHNSON, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
O. D. Van Duren, Texas prisoner # 667233, appeals from the district
court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(b). Van Duren contends that the district court erred in
finding that his claim was barred by the applicable statute of
limitations. Specifically, Van Duren argues that his cause of action
should accrue from the “denial of his final appeal,” rather than from
the injury itself.
We review a district court’s dismissal of a case under § 1915 for
an abuse of discretion. See Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the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.
Cir. 1994). Although Texas law governs the applicable statute of
limitations, we look to federal law to determine when the cause of
action accrues. See Gartrell v. Gaylor, 981 F.2d 254, 257 (5th Cir.
1993). We have held that the statute of limitations begins to run “when
the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the
basis of the action.” Id. Moreover, the cause of action begins to
accrue from the date of the actual injury, rather than from the date the
courts impose punishment. See id. For these reasons, and after a
thorough review of the record and Van Duren’s brief, we find that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case.
AFFIRMED.
2