Blacklock v. Hamilton

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-10304
Conference Calendar
TONY BLACKLOCK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TOM HAMILTON; D. MOTES;
PHILLIPS; TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:96-CV-901-E
- - - - - - - - - -
October 21, 1997
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tony Blacklock, Texas prisoner # 660791, filed a civil
rights complaint against various employees of the Tarrant County
Jail on December 9, 1996. The gravamen of Blacklock’s complaint
is that he was beaten by prison guards on November 18, 1993. The
district court dismissed the suit as frivolous because it was
time barred. “[W]here it is clear from the face of a complaint
filed in forma pauperis that the claims asserted are barred by
the applicable statute of limitations, those claims are properly
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 97-10304
-2-
dismissed pursuant to § 1915.” Gartrell v. Gaylor, 981 F.2d 254,
256 (5th Cir. 1993).
Blacklock does not dispute the application of the two-year
statute of limitations borrowed from Texas law nor does he
dispute the district court’s finding that he knew of the
violation of his rights at the time of the 1993 beating. See
Jackson v. Johnson, 950 F.2d 263, 265 (5th Cir. 1992). Blacklock
relies on the general rule of Texas law that the statute is
tolled by legal proceedings which prevent a party from exercising
his legal remedy. See Weisz v. Spindletop Oil and Gas Co., 664
S.W.2d 423, 425 (Tex. App. 1983)(citation omitted). Blacklock
has not shown that he was prevented from filing his suit within
the designated two-year period. Blacklock is not entitled to
equitable tolling because he had ample opportunity to timely file
his civil rights complaint even if he had been misled as to his
ability to file it pending the criminal action. Slack v.
Carpenter, 7 F.3d 418, 420 (5th Cir. 1993). The district court
did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Blacklock’s suit.
This appeal is without arguable merit and is thus
frivolous. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
We caution Blacklock that future frivolous civil suits and
appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition
of sanctions. Blacklock is cautioned further to review any
pending suits and appeals to ensure that they do not raise
No. 97-10304
-3-
arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.