Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01190/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01190-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

u· FILED 

<med StQtes Court of AJ:>p~ab 

Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

AUG 3 1989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

DEWEY M. MULLEN, JR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

TOM c. MARTIN, Warden; s. HICKS, 

Medical Director; JAWORKSI, Hospital 

Administrator; M. MAIZE, Assistant 

Hospital Administrator; WALLACE, 

Physicians Assistant; A. ROBLES, 

Physicians Assistant; BOYKIN, 

Physicians Assistant; ROBINSON, 

Unit Manager, Arizona I; SAFETY 

SUPER·VI SOR, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 87-1190 

) (D.C. No. 86-1989-BT) 

) (W.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, TACHA, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 87-1190 Document: 01019830688 Date Filed: 08/03/1989 Page: 1 
This prose action arose out of a prison accident in which 

plaintiff was injured. The trial court construed the complaint 

alternatively as a Bivens action for deliberate disregard of a 

prisoner's serious medical needs and as a federal tort claim for 

personal injury. The Court dismissed both actions for failure to 

comply with the appropriate time limitations for filing such 

actions. 

In the Bivens action, the court properly applied the Oklahoma 

two-year statute, 12 o.s. § 95, by analogy to the standards for 28 

u.s.c. § 1983 actions established in Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 

261 (1985). 

Although the Bivens action was first timely filed in 

Missouri, it was dismissed December 14, 1985 and the appeal 

dismissed April 25, 2985. It was not refiled in the district 

court for Oklahoma until September 5, 1986. The appropriate 

Oklahoma savings statute for refiling has a one-year limitation 

period. 12 o.s. § 100. The refiling was thus properly dismissed 

as untimely. 

The claim for personal injury was timely filed with the 

appropriate administrative agency as required by the Federal Tort 

Claims Act. 28 u.s.c. § 240l(b). The agency sent a notice of 

final denial by certified mail October 16, 1984. The statute 

requires that an action be brought within six months after the 

date of that mailing. The trial court cor~ectly held that the 

filing of this action on September 5, 1986 was not timely. 

The Court also correctly held that this action was not tolled 

because of incarceration under the Oklahoma tolling statute. 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-1190 Document: 01019830688 Date Filed: 08/03/1989 Page: 2 
Cumby v. Oklahoma, 699 P.2d 1094 (Okla.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 

838 (1985), makes clear that prisoners may bring actions while 

incarcerated. Nor is this prisoner entitled to the benefit of 12 

o.s. § 96. See Whalley v. Sakura, 804 F.2d 580, 586-87 (10th Cir. 

1986). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-1190 Document: 01019830688 Date Filed: 08/03/1989 Page: 3 
-

Appellate Case: 87-1190 Document: 01019830688 Date Filed: 08/03/1989 Page: 4