United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
MARCUS E. LOLAR, Plaintiff,
WILLIAM McDANIEL and KEVIN JEFFRIES, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
E. DOWDELL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
March 16, 2017, Plaintiff, a pro se prisoner who is
incarcerated at Davis Correctional Facility in Holdenville,
Oklahoma, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 (Doc. 1). On March 22, 2017, the Court
granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed in formal
pauperis (Doc. 3), and Plaintiff paid the required
initial partial filing fee on April 20, 2017 (Doc. 5). On
June 6, 2017, Defendant State of Oklahoma was dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), and
Plaintiff was directed to show cause why his claims against
Defendants William McDaniel and Kevin Jeffries should not be
dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations (Doc. 6).
Plaintiff filed a response to the show-cause order on June
19, 2017 (Doc. 7).
forth in the Court's previous Order, Plaintiff has
presented the following allegations against the two remaining
On 9-22-14, OFC William McDaniel of the Pawhuska Police Dept.
handcuffed Plaintiff in Ponca City and drove him to Pawhuska
county jailed [sic] on basis of arrest warrant issued without
either Jurisdiction and [sic] Probable Cause. (Doc. 1 at 2).
On 9-22-14, OFC William McDaniel conspired with Sgt. Kevin
Jeffries to illegally detain Plaintiff for him without a
probable cause warrant or arrest warrant. (Doc. 1 at 3).
law controls questions relating to accrual of federal causes
of action. A civil rights action accrues when the plaintiff
knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis
of the action.” Baker v. Bd. of Regents, 991
F.2d 628, 632 (10th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). See
also Indus. Constructors Corp. v. United States Bureau of
Reclamation, 15 F.3d 963, 969 (10th Cir. 1994). In
particular, “[a] civil rights action accrues when facts
that would support a cause of action are or should be
apparent.” Fratus v. Deland, 49 F.3d 673, 675
(10th Cir. 1995) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
See also Anderson v. Oklahoma, 382 F.3d 1206, 1215
(10th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1044
law controls the determination of the statute of limitations
and the application of tolling in a federal civil rights
action. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of State of N.Y. v.
Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 485 (1980). The statute of
limitations for a civil rights cause of action in Oklahoma is
two years. Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1522
(10th Cir. 1988), abrogated on other grounds as
recognized by Schneider v. City of Grand Junction Police
Dep't, 717 F.3d 760 (10th Cir. 2013); Okla. Stat.
tit. 12, § 95(A)(3).
alleges in his response to the show-cause Order that his
complaint mistakenly alleged the incidents at issue occurred
on September 22, 2014, when the correct date was September
22, 2012 (Doc. 7 at 1). He claims the direct appeal of his
criminal conviction was decided on April 25, 2015, and on
June 22, 2015, he filed an application for post-conviction
relief pursuant to the Post-Conviction DNA Act, Okla. Stat.
tit. 22, § 1373, which he believes tolled the limitation
period. Id. Plaintiff alleges the denial of his
post-conviction application was affirmed on August 30, 2016,
and he initiated a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in
this Court in November 2016. Id. at 1-2. The Court,
however, finds Petitioner's analysis of the statute of
limitations and tolling is erroneous, because his state
post-conviction and federal habeas proceedings are not
relevant to this civil rights action.
general, tolling of the limitation period is permitted in
Oklahoma in two limited circumstances. Alexander v.
Oklahoma, 382 F.3d 1206, 1217 (10th Cir. 2004).
The first circumstance is the existence of a legal
disability, which has been applied in cases where a
plaintiff's competency is impaired or where the plaintiff
has not yet reached the age of majority. The second
circumstance is when “defendants engage in false,
fraudulent or misleading conduct calculated to lull
plaintiffs into sitting on their rights.” [Finally, ]
in the appropriate case, exceptional circumstances may
justify tolling a statute of limitations.
Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2009)
(quotations, alterations, and citations omitted). None of
these exceptions applies to Plaintiff's case.
on the Plaintiff's allegations, his claims were or should
have been known to him on September 22, 2012. Absent tolling,
the limitation period for this action expired two years later
on September 22, 2014. The complaint, however, was not filed
until March 16, 2017. Therefore, the Court finds the
complaint must be dismissed as barred by the
statute of limitations.
IT IS ...