Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03258/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03258-0/pdf.json

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

---

.. 

PILED 

Uoited Stares Court of Appeals 

T cnth Circuit 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

FEB 2 3 1991 

FORREST DELAYNE MARTINSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

JAMES WOLNE~ and RANDY LINCK, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-3258 

(D.C. No. 89-3318-S) 

(D. Kan.) 

Before ARDBRSOR, TACBA, 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. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff was arrested by the Brown County, Kansas Sheriff's 

Department on September 1, 1985 on charges of aggravated assault 

and making terroristic threats. On the following day, he signed a 

waiver of his Miranda rights and gave a written statement. In 

January 1986, plaintiff was aquitted of the aggravated assault 

charge and convicted of making a terroristic threat. This 

* 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: 90-3258 Document: 010110028863 Date Filed: 02/26/1991 Page: 1 
conviction was affirmed by the Kansas Court of Appeals and the 

Kansas Supreme Court. 

Plaintiff filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

u.s.c. S 1983 in July 1989, claiming defendants violated his 

constitutional rights in the course of his arrest and conviction. 

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted 

by the district court. We affirm. 

In reviewing a summary judgment order, we apply the same 

standard employed by the district court under Rule 56 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Osgood Y.!.. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 848 F.2d 141, 143 (10th Cir. 1988). We will affirm only 

if it is clear from the record there are no genuine issues of 

material fact. Id. We review the district court's legal 

conclusions de novo. In re Ruti-Sweetwater. Inc., 836 F.2d 1263, 

1266 (10th Cir. 1988). 

The Supreme Court has held the statute of limitations for a 

section 1983 action is the state statute of limitations for a 

personal injury action. Wilson Y.!.. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 275-77 

(1985). We noted in Newcomb Y.!.. Ingle, 827 F.2d 675, 679 n.7 (10th 

Cir. 1987), that "[i]t is well-established that the statute of 

limitations for 42 u.s.c. S 1983 actions cononenced in the District 

of Kansas is two years." All of the actions plaintiff complains 

of occurred before July 1987. Although the limitations period is 

tolled for a person imprisoned for less than a life term, the 

tolling statute states that "if a person imprisoned for any term 

has access to the court for purposes of bringing an action, such 

person shall not be deemed to be under legal disability." 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3258 Document: 010110028863 Date Filed: 02/26/1991 Page: 2 
, Kan. Stat. Ann. S 60-515(a). We find no evidence in the record 

indicating plaintiff's access to the courts was unduly restricted 

during his incarceration. We therefore conclude the district 

court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of 

defendants. 

We also find the district court did not abuse its discretion 

in refusing to appoint counsel for plaintiff. See Blankenship Y.:.. 

Meachum, 840 F.2d 741, 743 (10th Cir. 1988). Nor did the court 

abuse its discretion in not hearing oral argument on defendants' 

motion for summary judgment. Because we find plaintiff presents a 

reasoned argument on the law and facts in support of the issues 

raised on appeal and is financially unable to pay the costs and 

fees on appeal, see Coppedge Y.:.. United States, 369 U.S. 438 

(1962); Ragan Y.:.. Cox, 305 F.2d 58 (10th Cir. 1962), we grant 

plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, reach the merits, 

and AFFIRM the order of the district court. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3258 Document: 010110028863 Date Filed: 02/26/1991 Page: 3