Raz v. LSU Med Ctr Sport ( 2002 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-31340
Summary Calendar
YORAM RAZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
MEDICAL CENTER SHREVEPORT;
ROBERT JACKSON; LAWRENCE
W. JOHNSON; AMIRA S. ASSI,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CV-381
--------------------
September 6, 2002
Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Yoram Raz, a pro se litigant, argues that the district court
erred in granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss his complaint
based on Raz’s failure to file his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint
within the one-year statute of limitations. Raz argues that he
did not have sufficient knowledge that the defendant doctors had
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-31340
-2-
violated his constitutional rights during an October 1998
hospitalization until discovery was conducted in February 2001.
Because there is no specified federal statute of limitations
for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suits, federal courts borrow the forum
state’s general personal injury period. Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S.
235, 249-51 (1989). The applicable prescriptive period in
Louisiana for personal injury claims is one year. Elzy v.
Roberson, 868 F.2d 793, 794-95 (5th Cir. 1989). “Under federal
law, a section 1983 action generally accrues when a plaintiff
‘knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of
the action.’” Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 157 (5th Cir.
1999) (citation omitted).
Raz’s allegations reflect that he was in possession of
critical facts showing that the defendants had employed medical
procedures which he deemed objectionable and abusive within one
year of his hospitalization. Because Raz’s cause of action was
clearly prescribed, the district court did not err in dismissing
the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.
Raz has not challenged the district court’s dismissal of his
claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Thus, he has
abandoned that claim on appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d
222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
Raz has not shown that the district court erred in denying
his motion to recuse the magistrate judge and the district court
No. 01-31340
-3-
judge from presiding in his case. He failed to show the judicial
officers were biased against him because the officers dismissed
his prior cases as frivolous; adverse rulings alone do not call
into question a judge’s impartiality. See Liteky v. United
States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Raz’s motion to file a second amended complaint. Such amendment
would have been futile because it would have also been subject to
dismissal based on the one-year statute of limitations.
Raz’s appeal has no arguable merit. The appeal is DISMISSED
as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.