Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05185/USCOURTS-ca10-90-05185-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED 

United States Coutt of Appeals 

Tenth Cirruit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FEB 1-~ 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

CLIFFORD LEROY PERRIN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

LEONARD AMES, JR., 

EDDIE MASON, and the 

CITY OF BARTLESVILLE, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-5185 

(D.C. No. 89-C-959-B) 

( N. D. Okla. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, 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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff-appellant Clifford Leroy Perrin appeals the 

dismissal by the Northern District of Oklahoma, Brett, J., of his 

prose civil rights action. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Specifically, 

Perrin contends that the district court erred in ruling that the 

* 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: 90-5185 Document: 010110099974 Date Filed: 02/14/1991 Page: 1 
statute of limitations barred him from bringing suit. We affirm 

the district court's order. 

FACTS 

On July 29, 1987, appellant was arrested by Bartlesville 

police officers Ames and Mason (defendants). In the course of a 

search pursuant to that arrest, the officers removed a wallet from 

appellant's pocket. Upon arrival at the jail and during book-in 

procedures, appellant noted that his wallet allegedly 

containing sixteen one-hundred dollar bills was not listed on 

the inventory. Appellant thereupon complained to the presiding 

officer, who commenced an investigation to determine the existence 

and whereabouts of the wallet. Over the following days, weeks, 

and months, appellant complained about the disappearance of his 

wallet and money to numerous officials, including "the City Jailer 

. several County Deputies, The County Sheriff, the Prosecutor 

and (3) Judges." Complaint, R. Vol. I, Doc. 2 at 6. It was not 

until the preliminary hearing almost one year later, however, that 

defendants admitted to taking from appellant a "black object" 

which "felt like a billfold." Id. at 4-5 (quoting transcript from 

preliminary hearing at 7-8). Defendants nevertheless denied 

knowing the contents of the wallet or where it ultimately "ended 

up." Id. 

On August 9, 1989 -- more than two years after the incident 

took place -- appellant filed this prose action under 42 u.s.c. § 

1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District 

of Oklahoma. He alleged that defendants (Ames, Mason, and the 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-5185 Document: 010110099974 Date Filed: 02/14/1991 Page: 2 
City of Bartlesville) violated his rights under the Fifth and 

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and sought 

declaratory and injunctive relief as well as monetary damages in 

excess of five million dollars. The Eastern District dismissed 

appellant's case for improper venue, and appellant refiled his 

complaint in the Northern District of Oklahoma on November 28, 

1989. On July 30, 1990, the district court, Brett, J., dismissed 

the action on a 12(b)(6) motion, concluding that appellant failed 

to file his action within the applicable two-year limitation 

period. Order at 2-3. Perrin now appeals that ruling, arguing 

that the statute of limitations should not have commenced running 

until July 27, 1988 -- the date of the preliminary hearing. 

DISCUSSION 

Title 42 u.s.c. § 1983 does not contain a specific statute of 

limitations. However, in Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276-280 

(1985), the Supreme Court held that the appropriate statute of 

limitations to be applied in all section 1983 actions is the state 

statute of limitations governing actions for personal injury. 

Applying this directive to the state of Oklahoma, the Tenth 

Circuit has concluded that "the most analogous statute 

of limitations in Oklahoma is the two-year provision on claims for 

'injury to the rights of another, not arising on contract, and not 

hereinafter enumerated.'" Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1524 

(10th Cir. 1988). Therefore, appellant's cause of action was 

appropriately governed by the two-year statute of limitations. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-5185 Document: 010110099974 Date Filed: 02/14/1991 Page: 3 
Appellant does not contest the length of the statute of 

limitations employed by the district court. He merely claims that 

the district court misapplied the statute of limitations by 

commencing its running on July 29, 1987. According to appellant, 

his cause of action against the defendants did not accrue until 

July 27, 1988 -- the date on which defendants first conceded that 

they had taken appellant's wallet. Since "[d]efendants 

fraudulently denied the existence of the wallet and concealed its 

whereabouts until the Priliminary [sic] Hearing," App. Br. at 2, 

appellant maintains that he was prevented from bringing suit until 

that time. This argument must fail. 

It is by now well-established that federal law controls 

questions relating to the accrual of federal causes of action. 

Ebrahimi v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 852 F.2d 516, 520 (10th Cir. 

1988); Newcomb v. Ingle, 827 F.2d 675, 678 (10th Cir. 1987). With 

regard to§ 1983 actions, most circuits agree that a cause of 

action does not accrue until the plaintiff knows or has reason to 

know of the injury alleged and until plaintiff is aware or should 

have been aware of the identity of the perpetrator. Mullinax v. 

McElhenney, 817 F.2d 711, 716 (11th Cir. 1987); Lavellee v. Listi, 

611 F.2d 1129, 1131 (5th Cir. 1980). 

There can be no doubt that appellant here was aware of his 

injury on July 29, 1987 -- the date the wallet was stolen. His 

protestations at the book-in sufficiently attest to that fact. 

Similarly, appellant makes no allegations, on appeal or below, 

that he was unaware of the identities of the officer defendants. 

Given the fact that the wallet was allegedly stolen by the 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-5185 Document: 010110099974 Date Filed: 02/14/1991 Page: 4 
arresting officers, Perrin either knew or should have known the 

identities of those officers on or around the 29th of July, 1987. 

He never made any suggestion that the officers concealed their 

identities from him. In fact, the only thing that appellant 

alleges on appeal is that he "did not have a reasonable knowledge 

of the whereabouts of his property until July 27, 1988 .... " 

App. Br. at 3. 

Perrin seems to argue that the statute of limitations as to 

stolen property does not begin to run until the thief openly and 

notoriously holds it. However, while this may be true for some of 

the state law property cases cited by Perrin in his brief, we must 

remember that this case involves a§ 1983 civil rights claim 

not a state law property claim. Clearly, the whereabouts of 

appellant's property was not crucial to his bringing a§ 1983 

action against defendants. So long as appellant was aware of the 

loss of his wallet and the identities of the arresting officers 

who took it from him, he had sufficient information to bring a§ 

1983 claim. That being so, we find that appellant's cause of 

action accrued on July 29, 1987, and that the statute of 

limitations had expired before he filed his complaint on August 9, 

1989. 

CONCLUSION 

We AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of appellant's§ 

1983 claim, since it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-5185 Document: 010110099974 Date Filed: 02/14/1991 Page: 5 
no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to 

relief. Haines v. Kerner, 519, 521 (1972). 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-5185 Document: 010110099974 Date Filed: 02/14/1991 Page: 6