Law v. Station KRIV Channel, et al

No. 99-20691
-1-
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-20691
Conference Calendar
DELORES MAXINE LAW,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATION KRIV CHANNEL 26 FOX; RANDY WALLACE,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-99-CV-357
--------------------
April 13, 2000
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Delores Maxine Law (“Law”), Texas prisoner #779426, appeals
the district court’s dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim. The district court
determined that Law’s claims were untimely and that Law had
failed to allege that she had been deprived of a constitutional
right by a party acting under color of state law.
When it is clear from the face of an in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) complaint that the claims asserted are barred by the
applicable statute of limitations, those claims are properly

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 99-20691
-2-
dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Gonzales v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1019-20 (5th Cir. 1998).
Law’s § 1983 suit is subject to Texas’ two-year statute of
limitations for personal injury actions. See Tex. Civ. Prac.
& Rem. Code Ann. § 16.003(a); see also Rodriguez v. Holmes, 963
F.2d 799, 803 (5th Cir. 1992). Under federal law, the statute of
limitations begins to run from the moment the plaintiff becomes
aware that he has suffered an injury or has sufficient
information to know that he has been injured. See Rodriguez, 963
F.2d at 803.
Since Law sustained her most recent alleged injury on
December 16, 1996, Law presumably was aware of all her injuries
by that date. Even if Law’s § 1983 complaint were deemed filed
on January 21, 1999, the date Law signed it, the complaint would
have been filed more than two years and one month after the date
on which Law’s cause of action accrued. Accordingly, it is clear
from the face of Law’s complaint that her claims were barred by
the applicable statute of limitations. Therefore, the district
court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action or in
declining to hold a Spears hearing. See Gonzales, 157 F.3d at
1019. Because the instant appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed.
See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Law’s motion seeking the appointment of
counsel is denied.
The lower court’s dismissal of Law’s complaint as frivolous
and this court’s dismissal of the appeal as frivolous count as
two “strikes” for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v.
Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). If Law accumulates

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 99-20691
-3-
three “strikes” under § 1915(g), she will not be able to proceed
IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while she is incarcerated
or detained in any facility unless she is under imminent danger
of serious physical injury. See id.; § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.

-- 3 of 3 --