Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): pauperis on appeal. But we remind him of his obligation to pay the filing fee in full. * After examining the brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1; 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 1 . At the outset, Gillings suggests that the district court erred in sua sponte invoking the statute-of-limitations defense. See Fratus v. DeLand, 49 F.3d 673, 675 (10th Cir. 1995) (<HOLDING>). But here, the district court “issue[dj a show 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court had no right to apply the statute of limitations sua sponte because it had been waived (B) holding sua sponte dismissal of civil rights complaint was error where complaint was treated as habeas corpus petition and dismissed on nonexhaustion grounds although nonexhaustion was waivable defense and not jurisdictional (C) holding that where plaintiffs claims are timely on the face of the allegations of the complaint a court should strike the affirmative defense of statute of limitations (D) holding that district court improperly dismissed pro se prisoners civil rights complaint by sua sponte raising statute of limitations defense that was neither patently clear from the face of the complaint nor rooted in adequately developed facts (E) recognizing that a district court may sua sponte dismiss a complaint for failure to serve after notice to the plaintiff
Output (English): holding that where plaintiffs claims are timely on the face of the allegations of the complaint a court should strike the affirmative defense of statute of limitations