Matthews v. Speier ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS February 18, 2005
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-50183
Summary Calendar
LINDY RAY MATTHEWS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHARLES SPEIER, Division Director; BETTIE WELLS, Agent,
DPO Central Parole Supervision; OTHERS, ADDRESS UNKNOWN;
MARIA RAMIREZ, Supervisor DPO, San Antonio I,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. A:03-CV-243-JN
- - - - - - - - - -
Before DAVIS, SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Lindy Ray Matthews, a federal prisoner (# 97243-079), appeals
the district court’s order granting the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment, based on the applicable two-year Texas
limitations statute, in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action
challenging Matthews’s prior state custody.
In his pro se complaint, which was filed in April 2003,
Matthews alleged that he was falsely imprisoned for 10 months
during 1996 and 1997, after the defendants failed to notify him of
the revocation of his “blue warrant,” which had been issued an
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-50183
- 2 -
executed in 1996 based on Matthews’s alleged violation of the terms
of his state parole.
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to
defendants on the ground that Matthews’s claim was barred by the
applicable Texas limitations statute. The summary-judgment
evidence reflected that Matthews’s claim had accrued by late 1998,
by which time Matthews’s parole officer had informed him that the
blue warrant had actually been revoked in May 1997, 10 months
before Matthews was initially informed of the revocation and
released on bond. See Jacobsen v. Osborne, 133 F.3d 315, 319 (5th
Cir. 1998); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986).
The limitations period expired two years after the claim accrued in
late 1998. Hitt v. Connell, 301 F.3d 240, 246 (5th Cir. 2002).
Matthews was not entitled to state-law tolling for “fraudulent
concealment,” because he was aware of the facts necessary to know
that the claim existed. See Booker v. Real Homes, Inc., 103 S.W.3d
487, 493 (Tex. Ct. App. 2003).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Matthews’s motion for appointment of counsel, see Jackson v. Dallas
Police Dep’t, 811 F.2d 260, 261 (5th Cir. 1986); his motion to
compel discovery, see King v. Dogan, 31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir.
1994); and his motion for leave to amend his complaint. See Ashe
v. Corley, 992 F.2d 540, 542 (5th Cir. 1993).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.