Roy Williams v. David Post

Case: 17-30814 Document: 00514820163 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 17-30814
FILED
February 1, 2019
Lyle W. Cayce
ROY A. WILLIAMS, also known as Roy Anthony Williams, Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
DAVID F. POST; CYNTHIA T. WOODARD; CLIFFORD R. STRIDER, III;
JON ANNE WINSTEAD; LINDA COOK; RENEE SMITH,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:17-CV-767
Before JONES, ELROD, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Roy A. Williams, Louisiana prisoner # 433256, moves for leave to proceed
in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal. He filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1983 and 1986 alleging that the defendants had conspired to cover up the
falsification of portions of his trial transcript. The district court dismissed on
various grounds, including a finding that his complaint was time barred. The
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 17-30814 Document: 00514820163 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2019
No. 17-30814
district court denied leave to proceed IFP on appeal for failure to submit a
statement of his prison trust account.
Williams now has submitted the required records of his trust account,
which show that he qualifies as a pauper. However, a movant for leave to
proceed IFP on appeal also must show that he presents a nonfrivolous issue for
appeal. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1)-(3). In his IFP motion, Williams asserts that he intends to raise
various issues on appeal, including whether his complaint was time barred.
Section 1986 sets forth a one-year limitations period. § 1986.
Louisiana’s one-year limitations period applies to Williams’s § 1983 complaint.
See Smith v. Reg’l Transit Auth., 827 F.3d 412, 421 (5th Cir. 2016). A cause of
action accrues when the plaintiff knows of the existence of an injury and the
cause of the injury. Id. The district court found that Williams was aware of
the facts supporting his claims by December 2006, that the limitations period
expired in December 2007, and that Williams did not file his complaint until
June 2017. In the district court, Williams argued that he did not file his
complaint earlier because he had not understood that the underlying facts
raised a potential claim under § 1983. However, for a limitation period to start,
“[a] plaintiff need not know that [he] has a legal cause of action; [he] need know
only the facts that would ultimately support a claim.” Piotrowski v. City of
Houston, 237 F.3d 567, 576 (5th Cir. 2001).
We conclude that Williams has not shown a nonfrivolous issue regarding
the dismissal of his complaint as time barred. As a result, his motion for leave
to proceed IFP is denied. See Carson, 689 F.2d at 586. We also dismiss his
appeal as frivolous. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 & n.24 (5th Cir.
1997); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
2