Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05212/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05212-0/pdf.json

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

---

FIL"'~~.J United Stat.Qs Co}lrt 9( Appaall' Tenth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FEBO 3 199.3 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

JOSEPH ANGELO DICESARE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V . ) 

) 

DAVID POPLIN; CARL SLOAN; J.D. ) 

BALDRIDGE; DENVER DAVENPORT; ) 

and RUSSELL GOODECKE, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

Clerk . 

No. 92-5212 

{D.C. No. CIV-91-274-E) 

(N.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, 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 {e); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

*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: 92-5212 Document: 010110165551 Date Filed: 02/03/1993 Page: 1 
This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment on 

the ground the action was barred by the statute of limitations. 

We affirm. 

Plaintiff, Joseph Angelo Dicesare, acting pro se, filed an 

action under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging defendants violated rights 

guaranteed to him under the United States Constitution. His 

complaint is not the short, plain statement of the claim required 

by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; therefore, it 

is difficult to understand what exactly Mr. DiCesare's suit is 

about. Liberally construing the confusion of legalisms, 

conclusory allegations, and facts which plaintiff strung together, 

however, we presume his first claim alleges a denial of his Fourth 

and Fourteenth Amendment Rights. Interspersed in a multitude of 

meaningless verbiage and unsupported conclusions is an assertion 

that defendants seized certain trucks belonging to plaintiff 

without a warrant. 

Plaintiff set out a second claim, but it is as confusing as 

the first. Buried in another string of prolixity, however, is the 

assertion, "Defendant Poplin sold the Plaintiff's trucks without 

giving Plaintiff due process and equal protection and acted in 

collusion and in-concert [sic] with the other Defendants listed in 

this complaint and Defendant Poplin was the proximate cause of 

selling Plaintiff's trucks ... II 

The district court referred the complaint to a Magistrate 

Judge who construed it as a claim for damages under§ 1983 for an 

illegal search and seizure. Because the magistrate found the 

seizure o ccurred more than two years prior to the filing of the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-5212 Document: 010110165551 Date Filed: 02/03/1993 Page: 2 
action, he recommended dismissal, citing Abbitt v . Franklin, 731 

F.2d 661, 663 (10th Cir. 1984 ) , and the Oklahoma two-year statute 

of limitations, Okla. Stat. tit. 12 , § 95 (1981 ) . Over 

plaintiff's subsequent objection, the district court agreed and 

dismissed . 

Plaintiff appeals asserting, even though the seizure of which 

he complained placed his Fourth Amendment claim beyond the 

statute, the district court "sidestepped" his due process claim 

which had been timely filed. He contends his second claim for 

relief was a claim asserting his property was disposed of without 

proper notice . He further states he alleged the sale effecting 

the disposition was within the two-year statute. 

We have examined the complaint with care . Except for the 

statement we have already quoted, we can find nothing within the 

second claim which can be remotely connected to the cause of 

action Mr. Dicesare now maintains he brought to the district 

court. There is no averment of the date on which the sale 

purportedly took place, and no averment that the defendants failed 

to give notice of the sale. Indeed, the only reference t o a sale 

is that defendant Poplin sold the trucks. There is no description 

of where the sale took place, the manner in which it was 

conducted, or any other fact that apprises the reader plaintiff is 

asserting a claim grounded on failure of due process notice. In 

short, even though Mr. Dicesare may sincerely believe he did so, 

we can find nothing within the complaint to support that b elief. 

Having reached this point, we need not deal with the other i ssues 

raised on appeal. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-5212 Document: 010110165551 Date Filed: 02/03/1993 Page: 3 
We conclude the district court properly dismissed the action 

as barred by the statute of limitations. We further hold the 

court did not ignore or "sidestep" a due process claim, for none 

was asserted. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-4 -

Appellate Case: 92-5212 Document: 010110165551 Date Filed: 02/03/1993 Page: 4