Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06285/USCOURTS-ca10-92-06285-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILLD 

United States Court of Appealt< 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS '}'i:mth r•;rcuit 

ALLAH-U-AKBAR 

ALLAH-U-WAHID, aka 

Charles E. Smith, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

WILLIAM M. ROBERTS, 

RYLAND L. REVIAS , 

DONALD W. BOCHAMP, 

JANICE MITCHELL, and 

JETHERO CURRIE, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APR O 6 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No . 92-6285 

(D.C. No. CIV-92-647-R) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, SETH and BARRETT, 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. 

3 4(a); Tenth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff Allah-U-Akbar Allah-U-Wahid filed a 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 civil rights complaint against numerous court officials and 

*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 o f the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel . 10th Cir. R. 36. 3. 

Appellate Case: 92-6285 Document: 010110200853 Date Filed: 04/06/1993 Page: 1 
his attorney, claiming that during his criminal trial the 

Defendants acted individually or in concert to unconstitutionally 

deprive him of a fair trial and his right to appeal. Relying on 

the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma dismissed the 

complaint as frivolous and without merit and imposed restrictions 

on further filings by the Plaintiff. We affirm. 

All of the alleged constitutional violations stem from 

Plaintiff's criminal proceedings which occurred in 1976 and 

resulted in a conviction. However, he did not file his§ 1983 

complaint until April 1992. The Magistrate correctly relied upon 

our decision in Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1523-24 (10th 

Cir.), that the applicable statute of limitations in Oklahoma for 

§ 1983 actions is two years. Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 95(3) 

("action for injury to the rights of another"). 

Plaintiff argues that the statute of limitations was tolled 

until October 1990, when Oklahoma court records containing his 

1976 conviction were transmitted to Alabama apparently for use in 

a local prosecution of Plaintiff. However, this argument is 

improperly based on the premise that the statute of limitations 

begins to run after the last overt act alleged to have caused 

damages. Claims accrue under§ 1983 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 the action." Johnson v. 

Johnson County Comm'n Bd., 925 F.2d 1299, 1301 (10th Cir.). 

Plaintiff presents no evidence why he did not or could not know of 

the alleged constitutional violations at the conclusion of his 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-6285 Document: 010110200853 Date Filed: 04/06/1993 Page: 2 
trial or after he unsuccessfully sought an appeal of his 1976 

conviction. See id. We must therefore conclude that Plaintiff's 

complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 

Because of our holding, we do not reach the issue addressed 

by the Magistrate of whether Plaintiff stated a claim upon which 

relief could be granted. In addition, Plaintiff has not 

challenged the imposition of restrictions and preconditions by the 

district court and therefore we will not disturb the district 

court's judgment on this matter. Even if Plaintiff's opening 

brief on appeal could be liberally construed to contain an 

allegation that the restrictions and preconditions are improper, 

we find no error by the district court in light of our holdings in 

Tripati v. Beaman, 878 F.2d 351 (10th Cir.}, and Cotner v. 

Hopkins, 795 F.2d 900 (10th Cir.). 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Oliver Seth 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-6285 Document: 010110200853 Date Filed: 04/06/1993 Page: 3 
--

Appellate Case: 92-6285 Document: 010110200853 Date Filed: 04/06/1993 Page: 4