“[A] forum state’s general or residual statute of limitations for personal injury claims applies to Section 1983 claims.” (citing Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-50 (1989)
How later courts described this case
- “[A] forum state’s general or residual statute of limitations for personal injury claims applies to Section 1983 claims.” (citing Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-50 (1989)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHARLES EDWARD TAYLOR CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 25-291
HARRY J. MOREL, ET AL. SECTION “R” (3)
ORDER AND REASONS
Plaintiff Charles Edward Taylor, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against Judge Joel T.
Chaisson, Harry J. Morel, Jr., Kurt F. Sims, Greg Champagne, and Detective
Atkins.1 Plaintiff’s complaint is based on alleged misconduct related to his
1991 conviction in the 29th Judicial District Court for the State of Louisiana
for distribution of cocaine. On May 27, 2025, Magistrate Judge Eva J.
Dossier issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that
plaintiff’s case be dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state
a claim upon which relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).2
Plaintiff timely filed an objection3 and a supplemental declaration in
opposition to the R&R.4 In his objection, plaintiff restates his assertions that:
1 R. Doc. 5.
2 R. Doc. 23.
3 R. Doc. 27.
4 R. Doc. 26.
(1) equitable tolling is justified; and (2) “actual innocence” and “miscarriage
of justice” warrant relief.5 Plaintiff additionally asserts that it was
“erroneous” to conclude that he failed to timely utilize available judicial
remedies.6 In his supplemental declaration, plaintiff, for the first time,
alleges that he did not learn of “critical information” regarding his claim until
2016.7
The Court has reviewed de novo plaintiff’s complaint, the record, the
applicable law, the Magistrate Judge’s R&R, and plaintiff’s objections. The
Magistrate Judge correctly determined that plaintiff’s allegations that
defendants have violated his constitutional rights are frivolous and fail to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Moreover, plaintiff’s
objections are meritless.
First, even if plaintiff’s cause of action was not known or reasonably
knowable by plaintiff until 2016, as plaintiff alleges in his supplemental
declaration in opposition to the R&R,8 his claims would be untimely.9
5 R. Doc. 27.
6 Id.
7 R. Doc. 26.
8 Id.
9 See La. Civ. Code art. 3493.1; Brown v. Pouncy, 93 F.4th 331, 334 (5th
Cir. 2024) (“[A] forum state’s general or residual statute of limitations
for personal injury claims applies to Section 1983 claims.” (citing
Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249-50 (1989)).
Plaintiff did not file this suit until 2025, nine years after he claims the
information became available. Under either the earlier one-year statute of
limitations or the updated two-year period, plaintiff’s claims are time-
barred.10 Second, Plaintiff’s objection regarding “miscarriage of justice” and
“actual innocence” is meritless. The Magistrate Judge correctly noted that
plaintiff’s argument applies to time limits for habeas petitions, not for
Section 1983 claims. Nothing in plaintiff’s objection alters the statute of
limitations analysis. Finally, plaintiff asserts that the Magistrate Judge
“erroneously” concluded that he had access to judicial remedies and failed to
act in a timely manner. This is not so. As this Court explained above, even
if plaintiff was not apprised of the information necessary to bring this claim
until 2016, he still failed to act in time.
Plaintiff’s objections are thus overruled, and this Court dismisses his
complaint with prejudice for the reasons given in the Magistrate Judge’s
R&R. Cf. Koetting v. Thompson, 995 F.2d 37, 40 (5th Cir. 1993) (stating
there is no requirement that the district court reiterate the findings of the
10 La. Civ. Code art. 3493.1. The two-year period became effective July 1,
2024 and, per the Editor’s Notes, the “Act shall be given prospective
application only and shall apply to delictual actions arising after the
effective date.” Id. The Court notes that the one-year period applies
here but whether the claims are assessed against the one-year or two-
year period does not change the outcome.
Magistrate Judge). The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s R&R as its
opinion.
Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this __3ist_ day of July, 2025.
hernk Varese.
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE