VanBuren v. Spoon, et al

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30402
Summary Calendar

JOSHUA JAMICHAEL VANBUREN,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

RAYMOND M. SPOON, Police Officer, West Monroe Police Department;
PAUL BLUNSCHI, Police Officer, West Monroe Police Department,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:19-CV-453

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
*

In April 2019, proceeding in forma pauperis, Joshua Jamichael
VanBuren filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
district court determined that VanBuren’s claims were untimely, and it
dismissed his complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
VanBuren timely appealed.

*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5
TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 4, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 19-30402 Document: 00515441662 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2020

No. 19-30402
2
VanBuren has filed several motions in this court, most of which are
substantially similar, seeking to amend and/or supplement his original
appellate brief. We grant the motion to supplement VanBuren’s brief and
consider the original and supplemental briefs together. We deny VanBuren’s
motion to expedite his appeal, his motion for the appointment of counsel, and
his motion for an injunction pending appeal. Any and all other outstanding
motions filed by VanBuren are also denied.
There is no dispute that Louisiana’s one-year statute of limitations
applies here, see Jacobsen v. Osborne, 133 F.3d 315, 319 (5th Cir. 1998), or that
federal law governs the dates that VanBuren’s claims accrued, Wallace v. Kato,
549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007); Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 51 F.3d 512, 516 (5th
Cir. 1995). The district court determined that the malicious prosecution claim
against Spoon accrued on February 11, 2016, when the case initiated by Spoon
was dismissed. See Winfrey v. Rogers, 901 F.3d 483, 492 (5th Cir. 2018), cert.
denied, 139 S. Ct. 1549 (2019). It also determined that the claim for false arrest
by Blunschi accrued in January 2017, when a judge at a bond hearing found
probable cause to hold VanBuren over. Given those accrual dates, VanBuren’s
claims are facially untimely.
On appeal, VanBuren argues that the one-year limitations period on his
claim against Spoon was interrupted upon his alleged and unrelated false
arrest by Blunschi. Without accounting for the time that elapsed between the
February 2016 dismissal of the case initiated by Spoon and his re-arrest by
Blunschi in January 2017, VanBuren asserts that his claims against both
Spoon and Blunschi accrued when he was released from custody in the
Blunschi case in March 2019 following his conviction for illegal use of a
firearm. He does not, however, point to any legal authority that supports his
accrual arguments.
Case: 19-30402 Document: 00515441662 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2020

No. 19-30402
3
VanBuren has not shown that the district court erred in determining
that the claims raised in his § 1983 complaint were time-barred. Accordingly,
he has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing
his complaint as frivolous under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d
732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998); Gartrell v. Gaylor, 981 F.2d 254, 256 (5th Cir.
1993).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Case: 19-30402 Document: 00515441662 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/04/2020