IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-40401
Conference Calendar
ROBERT L. WILLIAMS, III,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BRADSHAW STATE JAIL, Facility Health Administrator,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:01-CV-43
- - - - - - - - - -
December 11, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert L. Williams, III, a Texas prisoner (# 680652),
appeals from the dismissal of his pro se, in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) civil rights action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). The court dismissed the complaint, which was
filed on January 26, 2001, and which concerned injuries allegedly
inflicted by the defendant on January 21, 1999, because it was
barred by the applicable two-year Texas statute of limitations.
A district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint as frivolous
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-40401
-2-
on statute-of-limitations grounds where “it is clear 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. See Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 237
F.3d 567, 576 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 53
(2001); TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 16.003(a) (West 1999).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in
concluding that Williams’ complaint was not filed within the
applicable two-year limitations period. Because Williams’ appeal
is without arguable merit, the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous.
5TH CIR. R. 42.2; see Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th
Cir. 1983). The dismissal of the instant appeal as frivolous and
the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 complaint as
frivolous each count as a “strike” under the three-strikes
provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103
F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Williams is cautioned that, once
he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil
action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in
any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.