Aguilar v. Abbott

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 98-20317 Conference Calendar TIMOTHY AGUILAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ALICE MASON ABBOTT; DAVID TURNER, Defendants-Appellees. - - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-97-CV-1654 - - - - - - - - - - February 10, 1999 Before BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.* PER CURIAM:** Timothy Aguilar, a Texas prisoner (# 647166), appeals from the dismissal of his pro se civil rights action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint because it was barred by the applicable two-year Texas statute of limitations. A district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint as frivolous on statute-of-limitations grounds where “it is clear * This matter is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). ** 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 98-20317 -2- from the face of a complaint that the claims asserted are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.” Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 1994). For § 1983 claims, federal courts apply the general personal injury statute of limitations of the forum state, Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-50 (1989), which is two years in Texas. Cooper v. Brookshire, 70 F.3d 377, 380 n.20 (5th Cir. 1995); see TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 16.003(a) (West). Aguilar’s assertions that his claims were not discoverable until June 1995 are meritless, because his own allegations reflected that in 1993 he was aware of the injury he alleges and of circumstances that would have led a reasonable person to investigate further at that time. See Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 51 F.3d 512, 516 (5th Cir. 1995). The district court did not abuse its discretion in applying the limitations provision. AFFIRMED.