Donald Belue, an Alabama prisoner proceeding pro se, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against his trial coünsel and the district attorney, alleging that they conspired to falsify evidence to procure his 1995 conviction for first degree rape, sodomy, and burglary. ' Mr. Belue also claimed that his trial counsel and a court reporter conspired to change one of the juror’s answers to a voir dire question to conceal the juror’s bias. The district court, acting sua sponte, dismissed Mr. Belue’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(b)(l) on the grounds that his claims were frivolous, time-barred, and barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). Mr. Belue timely appealed. Because we agree with the district court that Mr. Belue’s claims are time-barred, we affirm.

“We review a district court’s sua sponte dismissal of a suit for failure to state a claim for relief under § 1915A(b)(l) de novo.” Harden v. Pataki 320 F.3d 1289, 1292 (11th Cir. 2003). Federal courts must apply a “forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions to actions brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.” Lovett v. Ray, 327 F.3d 1181, 1182 (11th Cir. 2003). “The two-year limitations period of Ala.Code § 6 — 2—38(í) applies to section 1983 actions in Alabama.” Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin, 876 F.2d 1480, 1483 (11th Cir. 1989). We may affirm a district court’s dismissal of a complaint as time-barred where a prisoner fails to identify why the statute of limitations might be *371 tolled in his case. See Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1163 (11th Cir. 2003).

Mr. Belue contends that the events giving rise to his § 1983 claim occurred in August of 1995. He filed his lawsuit in August of 2013, approximately 18 years later, which is well beyond the two-year statute of limitations, and has failed to assert any reasons why the statute of limitations period should be tolled. Accordingly, his claims are time-barred.

AFFIRMED.