DocketNumber: 09-40998
Judges: Davis, Smith, Dennis
Filed Date: 7/14/2010
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
Case: 09-40998 Document: 00511172376 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/14/2010 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED July 14, 2010 No. 09-40998 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JOHNNY LYNN EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ELIZABETH MILLER; ANGIE CARGILLE; WESLEY PRATT, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas No. 6:09-CV-234 Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Johnny Edwards, Texas prisoner # 566917, appeals the dismissal of his42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which re- * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 09-40998 Document: 00511172376 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/14/2010 No. 09-40998 lief may be granted because the claim was barred by the statute of limitations. Edwards alleged that prison officials acted improperly in confiscating two items of mail on February 9, 2007. That is this date on which he became aware of the facts that would give rise to the complaint. See Piotrowski v. City of Houston,237 F.3d 567
, 576 (5th Cir. 2001); see also Moore v. McDonald,30 F.3d 616
, 621 (5th Cir. 1994). As was found by the district court, Edwards is entitled to 87 days of tolling from February 25, 2007, to May 23, 2007, during which his grievance proceed- ings were pending. See Jackson v. Johnson,950 F.2d 263
, 265 (5th Cir. 1992); Holmes v. Texas A&M Univ.,145 F.3d 681
, 685 (5th Cir. 1998). Because he did not file his complaint within two-years plus the 87-day tolled period of Febru- ary 9, 2007, the complaint was untimely filed. See Stanley v. Foster,464 F.3d 565
, 568 (5th Cir. 2006). The district court did not abuse its discretion in con- cluding that the complaint was time-barred. See Moore,30 F.3d at 621
. The judgment is AFFIRMED. 2