UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-30715 Summary Calendar

MASSOOD DANESH PAJOOH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

KENNETH MONTGOMERY; JOHN BLAZE; TONY LOCK; STEVEN PLUNKETT; P. DREXCEL; R. FIRMIN; LEONARD GRACE; TERRI POVENMIRE; RONALD G. THOMPSON; FELIX SANCHEZ; C. GREEN; MARTHA JORDAN; SUE BEASLEY; R. THOMPSON; JOHN DOE; UNKNOWN EMPLOYEES,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (01-CV-89) _________________________________________________________________ December 27, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Massood Danesh Pajooh challenges the dismissal of his pro se

civil rights complaint, brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,

(1971).

Federal courts look to state law to determine the applicable

prescriptive period for a Bivens claim. See, e.g., Elzy v.

Roberson,

(5th Cir. 1989); LA. CIV. CODE ANN.

art. 3492 (West 1994) (applicable prescriptive period in Louisiana

is one year). We conclude: Pajooh was aware of each alleged

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. violation when it occurred; his claims accrued between February

and December 1999, when the alleged violations occurred; and his

claims prescribed, because his complaint was not filed until more

than a year later — in January 2001.

Pajooh’s contentions that some of his claims accrued within

the one-year prescriptive period are not persuasive. Although one

punishment did not begin until January 2000, Pajooh was aware in

December 1999 that the punishment would be imposed; therefore, any

claim accrued at that time. See Burns v. Harris County Bail Bond

Bd.,

(5th Cir. 1998). Pajooh also asserts

that another claim did not accrue until he learned of his weight

loss in January 2000; however, his constitutional claims arise from

the alleged violations of his rights by prison officials —

violations Pajooh was aware of when they occurred. Pajooh also

argues that his complaint should be construed under a continuing

violation theory, but he has not shown that any violation occurred

within the prescriptive period as is required under that theory.

See Hendrix v. City of Yazoo City, Miss.,

(5th

Cir. 1990).

Pajooh maintains that the Louisiana doctrine of contra non

valentem tolls the running of the prescriptive period because

harassment and fear of retaliation effectively prevented him from

timely filing a complaint. However, Pajooh’s own complaint

suggests that these allegations are exaggerated; despite his

alleged fear of retaliation, he included with his complaint

2 exhibits that show he filed internal grievances about many of the

incidents cited in that complaint.

Pajooh also requested the production of documents he asserts

were necessary to demonstrate how retaliation and harassment caused

him to delay filing his complaint. We conclude that the grant of

the protective order was neither arbitrary nor clearly

unreasonable. See Moore v. Willis Indep. Sch. Dist.,

(5th Cir. 2000). A motion to dismiss was pending, and the

magistrate judge had already issued a recommendation that Pajooh’s

complaint be dismissed as prescribed on its face. In addition, as

discussed above, Pajooh’s own complaint contradicts his claim that

harassment and retaliation caused him to delay filing his

complaint.

AFFIRMED

3