David Hill v. State of Iowa ( 1996 )


Menu:
  •                                     ___________
    No. 96-1793
    ___________
    David Hill,                              *
    *
    Appellant,                 *
    *
    v.                                  *
    *   Appeal from the United States
    State of Iowa; Steve McCoy;              *   District Court for the
    Michael Moorland; Sam Erhart,            *   Southern District of Iowa.
    Judge; Clerk of Court of                 *
    Wapello County; Wapello County           *          [UNPUBLISHED]
    Sheriff's Department; Unnamed            *
    Defendants, Unknown Agents of            *
    Government/State,                        *
    *
    Appellees.                 *
    ___________
    Submitted:    April 3, 1996
    Filed:   May 3, 1996
    ___________
    Before McMILLIAN, FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Iowa prisoner David Hill appeals the dismissal as frivolous of his
    
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     complaint by the District Court1 for the Southern District
    of Iowa.    Hill complained he did not receive preliminary notice of a 1991
    state replevin proceeding.
    Upon initial review and before service of process, the district court
    held that under Iowa law the cause of action accrued in 1991 when service
    of the replevin notice gave Hill knowledge of all the facts supporting his
    claim.     The district court determined
    1
    The Honorable R. E. Longstaff, United States District Judge
    for the Southern District of Iowa.
    the two-year Iowa statute of limitations applicable to § 1983 actions
    barred the suit, concluded Hill's complaint lacked an arguable basis in
    law, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and summarily dismissed the
    complaint without prejudice as frivolous under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (d).
    A district court may dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint under
    § 1915(d) when it is apparent the statute of limitations has run.        Myers
    v. Vogal, 
    960 F.2d 750
    , 751 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam).         We agree Hill
    knew all the facts supporting his claim upon service of replevin papers in
    1991 and Iowa's applicable two-year statute of limitations barred his 1996
    suit.     See Wycoff v. Menke, 
    773 F.2d 983
    , 984 (8th Cir. 1985), cert.
    denied, 
    475 U.S. 1028
     (1986).
    Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court.    See 8th Cir.
    R. 47A(a).
    A true copy.
    Attest:
    CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 96-1793

Filed Date: 5/3/1996

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021