Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06213/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06213-0/pdf.json

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

---

... 

• 

FI LED 

1.1·:,·red States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ''I'\ nrh (ir-,iit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

BEN CORLISS, ) 

FEB 6 1991 

S.OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

MARY 

JOHN 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

LEISTNER; DAVID HOUCK; 

DOBBINS; JOE OWENS, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-6213 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-180-W) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The 

cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Mr. Curliss appeals, prose, the dismissal of his pro se 

civil rights action. 

Mr. Curliss requests leave to proceed with this appeal in 

forma pauperis and we grant this request. 

* 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: 90-6213 Document: 010110098456 Date Filed: 02/06/1991 Page: 1 
Mr. Curliss, in his complaint, alleged that as a state 

prisoner he was removed from his cell for medical treatment and 

that his cell partner was admitted to Mr. Curliss' cell during his 

absence. Mr. Curliss alleges that his personal property, which 

was left in his cell, was stolen by persons unknown to him. Mr. 

Curliss then instituted this action, which was grounded upon 42 

U.S.C. § 1983, against several employees of the state prison 

arguing that they were responsible for the safeguarding of his 

personal property and they were deliberately indifferent to their 

obligation. 

The United States District Court ordered the filing of a 

Martinez 1 report (Order Requiring Special Report, February 5, 

1990) and later directed Mr. Curliss to respond. (Minute Order, 

April 11, 1990.) The Martinez report stated Mr. Curliss' property 

had neither been found nor recovered. The district court 

concluded that the Due Process Clause is not implicated by a 

negligent act of a state employee in causing an unintended loss of 

one's property and that Mr. Curliss had an adequate state postdeprivation remedy. The complaint was then dismissed as frivolous 

under 28 u.s.c. § 1915(d). 

Mr. Curliss appeals, arguing simply that the defendants are 

responsible for the loss of his property. He also argues that he 

has no adequate state remedy as Oklahoma law provides that one who 

1 Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6213 Document: 010110098456 Date Filed: 02/06/1991 Page: 2 
fails to file a claim within ninety days from the date of the 

incident loses ten percent of his claim. Mr. Curliss waited 

ninety-seven days to file his state claim but argues this was the 

result of his ignorance of the law, which was being used against 

him. He also argues that defendants were negligent in that had 

they conducted a "shake down" of all cells promptly, his property 

would have been recovered. 

Mr. Curliss misperceives the law. The law was correctly 

stated and applied by the district court. The fact that a portion 

of Mr. Curliss' claim was barred by the Oklahoma Statute of 

Limitations does not give rise to a civil rights suit in federal 

court, and neither does a mere negligent act. 

Finally, while the district court correctly ruled that 

Plaintiff's allegation regarding the alleged harassment in being 

asked to shave was not properly before the court, it is also clear 

that such a request would be deemed to be reasonably related to a 

legitimate penological interest. Thus, Mr. Curliss' contention is 

without merit. 

The judgment of the United States District Court is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-6213 Document: 010110098456 Date Filed: 02/06/1991 Page: 3