O'Carolan v. Puryear ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                              United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                       July 3, 2003
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 02-51286
    Summary Calendar
    RENEE SHEREE O’CAROLAN,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    TATE PURYEAR; TODD RIFFE; ROLAND CUNNINGHAM;
    JOHN DOES 1-10; WILLIAM DON MANTAGUE, Individually,
    and as Hays County Sheriff,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. A-02-CV-41-SS
    --------------------
    Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Renee     Sheree   O’Carolan    (O’Carolan)   appeals   the    district
    court’s grant of summary judgment to the defendants on her civil
    rights complaint filed pursuant to 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     in Texas state
    court.    She argues that her petition was timely filed and served
    under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which she contends
    should be applied in this case.
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-51286
    -2-
    The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “apply to civil actions
    removed to the United States district courts from the state courts
    and   govern   procedure    after    removal.”     FED. R. CIV. P.    81(c)
    (emphasis added); see also Matter of Meyerland, 
    960 F.2d 512
    , 520
    (5th Cir. 1992) (en banc) (“A case removed from state court simply
    comes into the federal system in the same condition in which it
    left the state system.”).       Accordingly, because O’Carolan’s case
    originated     in   state   court,   and   the   events   relevant   to   its
    timeliness occurred prior to its removal, the Federal Rules of
    Civil Procedure do not govern the issue whether O’Carolan tolled
    the applicable statute of limitations while her case was pending in
    Texas state court.      See FED. R. CIV. P. 81(c); Meyerland, 
    960 F.2d at 520
    .   Because O’Carolan’s claim is time barred in state court,
    Hainsler v. Mainka, 
    807 S.W.2d 3
    , 5 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi
    1991), it is also time barred here.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-51286

Judges: Jones, Stewart, Dennis

Filed Date: 7/7/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024