Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Chambers v. Boughton

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division

May 16, 2019

CURT L. CHAMBERS, II.
v.
B. BOUGHTON, ET AL.

          FOOTE, MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          Mark L. Hornsby, U.S. Magistrate Judge.

         In accordance with the standing order of this court, this matter was referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for review, report and recommendation.

         STATEMENT OF CLAIM

         Plaintiff claims that on December 14, 2017, Agents B. Boughton and James Cisco used excessive force against him during a police investigation. He claims Boughton fired shots at him as he drove away. He claims he was struck in the right elbow by a bullet. Plaintiff claims Cisco kicked and punched him in the face while he was handcuffed and face down on his stomach. He claims he did not resist the officers. He claims he lost consciousness and his face was swollen. Plaintiff claims he had to go to the hospital for medical treatment.

         Plaintiff claims the gunshot wound caused numbness, nerve damage, mental anguish, and depression. He also claims he has back and neck problems and pain. He claims that after he was shot, he feared driving a vehicle and police officers. He claims his car was also totaled.

         Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks monetary compensation, therapy, and the termination of Defendants.

         LAW AND ANALYSIS

         In Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261 (1985), the Court articulated the guidelines to be used in determining what prescriptive period should apply to Section 1983 claims. The Court determined "§ 1983 claims are best characterized as personal injury actions" and the forum state's statute of limitations applicable to such claims should be used. Id. at 280. In Gates v. Spinks, 771 F.2d 916 (5th Cir. 1985), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals phrased the test as: "The state statute governing the general tort remedy for personal injuries should apply to 1983 actions . . ." Gates, 771 F.2d at 919.

         The Louisiana Civil Code provides a general prescriptive statute that governs tort actions. The article subjects delictual actions to a liberative prescription of one year. See La. C.C. art. 3492. The Fifth Circuit qualified this prescriptive period, however, when it held that "a section 1983 action accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis for the action." Watts v. Graves, 720 F.2d 1416, 1417 (5th Cir. 1983). Finally, prescription on the claim is tolled while the administrative remedy procedure is pending. See Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153 (5th Cir. 1999).

         Plaintiff claims his civil rights were violated by Defendants on December 14, 2017. Thus, prescription began to run as to these claims in December of 2017. The above entitled and numbered complaint was not signed by Plaintiff until February 11, 2019, and it was not filed by the Clerk of Court until February 13, 2019. Plaintiff's claims are therefore prescribed. Accordingly, Plaintiff's civil rights complaint should be dismissed as frivolous.

         CONCLUSION

         Because Plaintiff filed this proceeding in forma pauperis ("IFP"), if this court finds Plaintiff's complaint to be frivolous, it may dismiss the complaint as such at any time, before or after service of process, and before or after answers have been filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1119 (5th Cir. 1986); Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985). District courts are vested with extremely broad discretion in making a determination of whether an IFP proceeding is frivolous and may dismiss a claim as frivolous if the IFP complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. See Hicks v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22 (5th Cir. 1995); Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 1993); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). See also Gartrell v. Gaylor, 981 F.3d 254, 256 (5th Cir. 1993) ("Where 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.")

         For the reasons stated above, the court finds that the IFP complaint of Plaintiff lacks an arguable ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.