Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-05124/USCOURTS-ca10-91-05124-0/pdf.json

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

---

• 

I 

FILED 

United States Court of Appcr..b 

URITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tent.'1 Circuit · 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT OCT 2 8 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

ALVIN PARKER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

OKLAHOMA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT; 

BOB BEMO; RON MITCHELL; STEVE 

PACHEKO; WILLIAM JOEL CITTY; 

ROGER MONTGOMERY; and JOYCE A. 

GILCHRIST, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 91-5124 

(D. C. No. CIV-91-72-T) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER ARD JUDGMENT* 

Before .ARDERSOH, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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 

Mr. Parker, a state inmate, appeals prose the dismissal of 

* 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 estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-5124 Document: 010110092936 Date Filed: 10/28/1991 Page: 1 
• 

' his civil rights suit. 

Mr. Parker was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced 

to life imprisonment. His appeal resulted in a reversal and he 

was retried, convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to 

199 years in prison. This second conviction is currently being 

appealed through the Oklahoma courts. 

Mr. Parker then commenced this action, prose, under 42 

U.S.C. S 1983 wherein he named as defendants the Oklahoma Police 

Department, five of its detectives and a police serologist. In 

his first count, Mr. Parker asserts he was forced to participate 

in a police lineup on February 9, 1985, without counsel. In his 

second claim. Mr. Parker asserts the defendants fabricated 

evidence on a conspiracy to convict him wrongfully. 

The trial court 

barred by the statute 

dismissed the first count holding it was 

of limitations. The wrongful act was 

alleged to have occurred on February 9, 1985. This complaint was 

filed January 17, 1991, nearly six years later. The district 

court applied Oklahoma's two-year statute for "an action for 

injury to the rights of another." Okla. Stat. tit. 12 S 95(3). 

In his prose appeal, Mr. Parker asserts the two-year statute 

of limitations should commence running in October 1989 when the 

Oklahoma court of criminal appeals reversed the first conviction 

arguing the determination was the triggering event. Mr. Parker's 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-5124 Document: 010110092936 Date Filed: 10/28/1991 Page: 2 
\ 

\ 

• argument must fail since when an illegal search is alleged the 

cause of action accrues when the wrongful act occurs. Venegas v. 

Wagner, 704 F.2d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Mr. Parker next argues the principles of estoppel asserting 

that issues determined at a criminal trial may work an estoppel in 

a subsequent civil proceeding. We need not analyze this 

contention as the claim is time barred. 

Mr. Parker maintains the illegal lineup was a continuing tort 

and each day he was deprived of his constitutional rights 

constitutes a new violation. Mr. Parker misperceives the law. He 

complains of a single, discrete, and separate act that occurred on 

February 9, 1985. Accordingly, this argument also fails. 

Concerning Mr. Parker's claim that police conspired to 

fabricate evidence to convict him, the district court found the 

action premature and concluded it was a malicious prosecution suit 

which does not accrue until acquittal by the state tribunal 

reviewing the case. See Robinson v. Maruffi, 895 F.2d 649, 654 

(10th Cir. 1990). Mr. Parker has not appealed this ruling. 

Following the trial court's decisions, Mr. Parker, in a 

series of motions, sought leave to amend his complaint: (1) 

naming additional defendants (the judges of the Oklahoma court of 

criminal appeals, two public defenders, the mayor, and the chief 

of police); and (2) asserting additional claims (fraudulently 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-5124 Document: 010110092936 Date Filed: 10/28/1991 Page: 3 
• 

concealing a first degree murder conviction, gross negligent 

failure to train employees). The district court denied these 

motions concluding no facts were offered and that respondeat 

superior is not a basis for liability under 42 u.s.c. § 1983. 

Mr. Parker appeals this ruling asserting: (1) the judges 

were not acting within their jurisdiction and their actions were 

racially biased; (2) there exists a conspiracy between the 

appellate judges and Mr. Parker's defense counsel; and (3) 

defendants conspired to fraudulently conceal his first degree 

murder conviction solely for the purpose of allowing the state to 

retry him. 

Mr. Parker's assertions, made both to this court and to the 

district court, are nothing more than mumbo-jumbo, with a touch of 

legal jargon. They were not sufficient to persuade the district 

court to grant leave to amend and they are not sufficient to 

persuade this court to conclude the district court erred. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-5124 Document: 010110092936 Date Filed: 10/28/1991 Page: 4