Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03285/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03285-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

JOHN JOHNSON, JR., ) 

) 

} 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

JOHNSON COUNTY COMMISSION BOARD; 

JOHNSON COUNTY JURY SERVICE AND 

SELECTION BOARD, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

JOHN JOHNSON, JR. , ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

CITY OF OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS; ) 

OVERLAND PARK CITY COMMISSION ) 

BOARD & COMMISSIONER; OVERLAND ) 

PARK CITY COMMISSION BOARD MEMBERS ) 

& COMMISSIONERS, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

FIL.Eb 

United Scar~;.~ (."Q·i...m of A.pe>eals 

T enr:h Circuit • 

FEB 19 i99l 

.ROBERT L. HOECI<"~R Clerk 

No. 90-3284 

No. 90-3285 

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the District of Kansas 

(D.C. Nos. 90-CV-3234 and 90-CV-3338) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

John Johnson, Jr., prose. 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

LOGAN, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 90-3285 Document: 01019729007 Date Filed: 02/19/1991 Page: 1 
Plaintiff John Johnson, Jr. filed a civil rights complaint, 

pursuant to 42 u.s.c. § 1983, against the Johnson County, Kansas, 

Commission and its "jury service and selection board," alleging 

that he was deprived of a fair trial due to systematic racial 

discrimination in the selection of jury members. He filed a 

similar action against the City of Overland Park, Kansas, its city 

commission board and members, alleging that he was deprived of his 

constitutional rights by Overland Park police during unlawful 

interrogations, searches and seizures, forceable entries, and an 

arrest. The district court dismissed both complaints as barred by 

the two-year statute of limitations covering "an injury to the 

rights of others" in Kansas. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-513(a)(4). The 

court also denied plaintiff's motions to proceeed in forma 

pauperis on appeal, because it determined that plaintiff's appeals 

are legally frivolous. We agree with the district court and 

dismiss the appeals. 1 

The incidents on which plaintiff bases his claim against the 

City of Overland Park and those related defendants occurred in 

January 1988; plaintiff did not commence the action against them 

until August 22, 1990. The trial at which the Johnson County 

defendants allegedly discriminated in the jury selection system 

occurred in May 1988; plaintiff did not commence the action 

against them until July 12, 1990. The district court correctly 

relied upon this court's ruling in Hamilton v. City of OVerland 

1 After exam1n1ng the briefs and appellate record, this panel has 

determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cases are therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3285 Document: 01019729007 Date Filed: 02/19/1991 Page: 2 
Park, 730 F.2d 613 (lOth Cir. 1984) (en bane), cert. denied, 471 

U.S. 1052 (1985), that the appropriate statute of limitations for 

§ 1983 actions arising in Kansas is two years, under Kan. Stat. 

Ann. § 60-513(a)(4). Plaintiff's reliance on Sullivan v. 

LaMunyon, 572 F. Supp. 753 (D. Kan. 1983) (holding that three-year 

statute of limitations under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-512 is more 

appropriate for § 1983 action and requesting appellate court to 

clarify law), is improper, because Hamilton clearly settled the 

question after Sullivan and is therefore controlling. 

Plaintiff also contends in both cases that he was blamelessly 

ignorant of the existence or cause of his injuries and that the 

claims should not have accrued until he knew of his injuries. 

Section 1983 claims accrue, ·for the purpose of the statute of 

limitations, "'when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of 

the injury which is the basis of his action.'" Singleton v. City 

of New York, 632 F.2d 185, 191 (2d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 450 

u.s. 920 (1981), (quoting Bireline v. Seagondollar, 567 F.2d 260, 

263 (4th Cir. 1977), cert. denied 444 u.s. 842 (1979)). Claims 

alleging denial of a fair trial are presumed to have accrued at 

the time the trial concludes. See, ~, Martin v. Merola, 532 

F.2d 191, 195 n.7 (2d Cir. 1976). Claims arising out of police 

actions toward a criminal suspect, such as arrest, interrogation, 

or search and seizure, are presumed to have accrued when the 

actions actually occur. See, ~, Singleton, 632 F.2d at 191; 

McCune v. City of Grand Rapids, 842 F.2d 903, 906 {6th Cir. 1988). 

Plaintiff presents no reason why he did not know at the time of 

his trial that potential jurors were improperly excluded from the 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3285 Document: 01019729007 Date Filed: 02/19/1991 Page: 3 
jury or venire based on their race. Plaintiff presents no reason 

why he did not know of his other alleged injuries at the time of 

the arrest, interrogations, searches and seizures, and other 

activities, which allegedly caused them. Accordingly, the claims 

accrued in January 1988 and May 1988 and the suits were not 

brought in a timely manner. They are now barred by the statute of 

limitations. 

We deny plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed without 

prepayment of costs or fees, and we dismiss the appeals, because 

there are no rational arguments on the law and facts which can 

support viable claims on the issues raised in the appeals. See 

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962). 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-3285 Document: 01019729007 Date Filed: 02/19/1991 Page: 4