Gonzalez v. Prasifka
This text of Gonzalez v. Prasifka (Gonzalez v. Prasifka) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-41117 Conference Calendar
ROBERT GONZALEZ, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
THOMAS PRASIFKA, Warden; WILLIAM G.,
Defendants-Appellees.
-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. C-02-CV-172 -------------------- February 19, 2003 Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Gonzalez, Jr., Texas state prisoner # 761485, appeals
the district court’s dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of
his pro se, in forma pauperis 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as
barred by the statute of limitations. This litigation is
governed by the Texas personal injury limitations period, which
is two years, and federal law determines when the cause of action
accrues. Gartrell v. Gaylor, 981 F.2d 254, 256 (5th Cir. 1993).
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 02-41117 -2-
Gonzalez’s cause of action accrued, at the latest, on August 5,
1999, the date of the attack. See Piotrowski v. City of Houston,
51 F.3d 512, 516 (5th Cir. 1995) (cause of action accrues when
plaintiff becomes aware that he has suffered an injury or has
sufficient information to know that he has been injured).
Additionally, Gonzalez’s tolling argument is rejected because
Texas law no longer provides for tolling because of imprisonment.
See Gartrell, 981 F.2d at 257; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann.
§ 16.001 (Vernon 2002). Since Gonzalez did not file his
complaint within two years of August 5, 1999, the district court
did not commit error when it dismissed Gonzalez’s complaint as
barred by the statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Gonzalez v. Prasifka, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-prasifka-ca5-2003.