Barnett v. Ray

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
August 23, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
CALVIN EUGENE BARNETT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 10-7007
(D.C. No. 6:09-CV-00176-JHP-SPS)
CHARLES RAY, Warden; ROBERT (E.D. Okla.)
EZELL, Assistant Warden; BILL
BOYD, Assistant Warden; DENNIS
JOHNSON, Chief of Security;
YANDELL; CARTWRIGHT, Property
Officer; MOORE, Librarian Officer;
BREWER, Unit Manager,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, HOLLOWAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-appellant Calvin Eugene Barnett, appearing pro se and in forma
pauperis, appeals the order of the district court dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
complaint as untimely and ruling that other outstanding motions were moot. Our
jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the dismissal of a
complaint for failure to comply with the applicable statute of limitations de novo,
Sterlin v. Biomune Sys., 154 F.3d 1191, 1194 (10th Cir. 1998), and we dismiss
this appeal as frivolous.
On April 28, 2008, Mr. Barnett filed his original complaint in the district
court. That action was dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay the initial
partial filing fee, a disposition affirmed by this court on appeal. Barnett v. Ray,
320 F. App’x 823, 823 (10th Cir. 2009).
In his latest complaint, filed on May 5, 2009, Mr. Barnett charges that
defendants acted under state law but, other than reciting various legal platitudes
and alleging that defendants deprived him of “his personal and legal Property
interest,” R. at 10, the complaint does not tell us what happened to him to
occasion this lawsuit. From the order of the district court and his opening brief
on appeal, however, we learn that defendants, during a shake-down at the prison
in which he was being held, allegedly confiscated Mr. Barnett’s head phones,
damaged them, and then refused to allow him to mail them to his home.
Mr. Barnett states in his brief that the shake-down occurred on May 4, 2005.
“In a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, we apply the
applicable state statute of limitations.” Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1162
(10th Cir. 2005). At the time of the alleged incident, Mr. Barnett was an inmate
-2-
of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, incarcerated in Holdenville,
Oklahoma. We therefore apply Oklahoma’s two-year statute of limitations for
“injury to the rights of another, not arising on contract, and not hereinafter
enumerated.” Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 95(3); see also Meade v. Grubbs,
841 F.2d 1512, 1522 (10th Cir. 1988). Thus, to be timely, Mr. Barnett’s
complaint needed to have been filed on or before May 4, 2007. Because
Mr. Barnett’s original complaint was not filed until April 28, 2008, well after the
expiration of the two-year limitations period, the district court did not err in
dismissing this case.
Mr. Barnett’s argument that the district court was misled by defendants’
attorney is completely unsupported. Because his complaint was untimely,
dismissal was proper, and none of the other issues raised in Mr. Barnett’s briefs
will be addressed. Because Mr. Barnett “has failed to present any legal theory
which could conceivably refute the district court’s disposition, his appeal is
frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).” Davis v. Kan. Dep’t Corr.,
507 F.3d 1246, 1249 (10th Cir. 2007). We therefore assess Mr. Barnett a strike as
provided under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) for this frivolous appeal. See Jennings v.
Natrona Cnty. Det. Ctr. Med. Facility, 175 F.3d 775, 781 (10th Cir. 1999).
-3-
This appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. Mr. Barnett is reminded of his
obligation to continue making partial payments of his appellate filing fee until the
entire balance is paid in full.
Entered for the Court
Deanell Reece Tacha
Circuit Judge
-4-