IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-10285
Conference Calendar
__________________
ALMOND KING,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CITY OF GARLAND, TX, and
A AFFORDABLE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:94-CV-832-X
- - - - - - - - - -
August 24, 1995
Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Almond King appeals the dismissal of his civil rights suit
as time barred. He argues in conclusional terms that the
district court failed to consider when he discovered that his
automobile had been auctioned off or when he discovered that the
insurance company had been notified. King does not allege when
he discovered the alleged deprivation.
*
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that this opinion should not be published.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. 95-10285
-2-
"[W]here it is clear from the face of a complaint filed in
forma pauperis that the claims asserted are barred by the
applicable statute of limitations, those claims are properly
dismissed pursuant to § 1915(d)." Gartrell v. Gaylor, 981 F.2d
254, 256 (5th Cir. 1993). Because there is no federal statute of
limitations for civil rights actions, the Texas general personal-
injury limitations period of two years applies. Id. "Under
federal law, a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff knows
or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the
action." Id. at 257. A plaintiff need not know that his
constitutional rights were violated to have a cause of action
accrue, he must simply be in possession of the "critical facts"
that he had been injured and that the defendant was involved.
See Freeze v. Griffith, 849 F.2d 172, 175 (5th Cir. 1988).
The alleged deprivation of King's property occurred in 1991.
According to a document submitted by King with his objections to
the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, King was
notified on September 13, 1991, of the sale of his vehicle at
auction and had contacted A-Affordable about this matter through
his attorney as early as May 1991. King's complaint was signed
January 31, 1994, but was filed on April 26, 1994. The district
court did not abuse its discretion in finding that King was in
possession of the critical facts regarding his alleged injury
more than two years before suit was filed.
To the extent that King argues that his incarceration tolls
the running of the statute of limitations, this argument lacks
merit. Under applicable Texas law, the statute of limitations is
No. 95-10285
-3-
not tolled by a party's incarceration. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.
Code Ann. § 16.001 (West 1992) (effective September 1, 1987).
The dismissal of King's complaint as frivolous is AFFIRMED.