Dass vs. Caplinger, (5th Cir. 1999)
Linked as:
Text
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .
R. 47.5.4. ** Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-30317 Summary Calendar MULK RAJ DASS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JOHN B.Z. CAPLINGER; CHRIS SALE, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 97-CV-1971 January 20, 1999 Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Mulk Raj Dass, federal prisoner # 97129-012, appeals the district court§ 1915A(b)(1). Dass contends that the district court erred in holding that Heck v. Humphrey ,
Crim.
P. 40(a). Dass also argues that the district court erred in holding that his claims, alleging constitutional violations occurring between March 1995 and December 1995, had prescribed.
In Heck , the Supreme Court held that in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such determination, or called into question by a federal court§ 2254. A claim for damages bearing that relationship to a conviction or sentence that has not been so invalidated is not cognizable under § 1983. 512 U.S. 486-87 (footnote omitted). A federal prisoner's Bivens action is subject to the rule enunciated in Heck . Stephenson v. Reno , 28 F.3d 26, 27-28 (5th Cir. 1994). If a plaintiff§ 1983 complaint). However, if a successful civil rights claim will not demonstrate the invalidity of any outstanding criminal judgment against the plaintiff, the action should be allowed to proceed in the absence of some other bar to the suit. Id. Because DassÂ’s civil rights claims, if successful, would not demonstrate the invalidity of any criminal judgment against Dass, the claims are not premature under Heck .
The conduct underlying DassÂ’s civil rights claims occurred between March and December 1995, and Dass did not file his civil rights complaint until October 1, 1997. The federal courts look to state law to determine the applicable limitations or prescriptive period for a Bivens claim. Spina v. Aaron , 821 F.2d 1126, 1128-29 (5th Cir. 1987). The applicable prescriptive period in Louisiana is one year. Elzy v. Roberson , 868 F.2d 793, 794-95 (5th Cir. 1989). Because Dass did not file his suit within one year from the alleged acts underlying his claims, his claims have prescribed. See Elzy , 686 F.2d at 794-95.
AFFIRMED.
No. 98-30317
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Supreme Court - Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Obadiah Stephenson, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant,V.Janet Reno, United States Attorney General Et Al.,Defendants-Appellees., 28 F.3d 26 (5th Cir. 1994)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Alan James Spina, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.L. Aaron, Etc., Et Al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 86-1407 Summary Calendar., 821 F.2d 1126 (5th Cir. 1987)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - Alvin Elzy, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Warden Roberson, House of Detention, Defendant-Appellee. No. 88-3827. Summary Calendar., 868 F.2d 793 (5th Cir. 1989)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
