Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01686/USCOURTS-ca10-87-01686-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

... 

F !LED 

UniMd Scates Courc of Appeab Teneh Circ:uir 

FEB 2 3 1988 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

ROBERT JOHN ARKO, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE RESERVE ) 

OFFICER TRAINING PROGRAM; THE SCHOOL ) 

OF EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO; ) 

SCHOOL OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO; ) 

THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION; ) 

THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN LAW SCHOOLS;) 

THE LAW SCHOOL ADMISSION COUNCIL; ) 

THE LAW SCHOOL ADMISSION SERVICES, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

No. 87-1686 

{D.C. No. 86-F-1818) 

{ D. Colo.) 

Before MOORE and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and BRIMMER, Chief Judge.* 

*Honorable Clarence A. 

District Court for 

designation. 

Brimmer, Chief Judge, United States 

the District of Wyoming, sitting by 

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. 34.1.8. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Plaintiff appeals the dismissal of his complaint and the 

denial of his subsequent Rule 60(b) motion. Plaintiff alleges 

Appellate Case: 87-1686 Document: 010110027520 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 1 
I 

, 

that numerous state and federal actors deprived him of due process 

of law by denying him educational opportunities in the Air Force 

Reserve Training Program, the University of Colorado, and the 

University of Colorado Law School. Plaintiff also alleges that 

some of the defendants discriminated against him. 

The United States Air Force Reserve Officer Training Program 

moved to dismiss on several grounds. The Law School Admission 

Council and the Law School Admission Services moved to dismiss for 

lack of personal jurisdiction. The University of Colorado, the 

Colorado University Law School, and the American Bar Association 

did not answer the complaint or move to dismiss. 

The court dismissed plaintiff's complaint in its entirety as 

barred by the applicable statute of limitations. No defendant, 

however, had raised the statute of limitations as a defense. 

Statute of limitations is an affirmative defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

8 ( C) • This court has noted that "[g]enerally, it is the duty of 

the defendant to plead affirmative defenses, and the court cannot 

raise such defenses sua sponte. 11 Yellen v. Cooper, 828 F. 2d 

1471, 1476 (10th Cir. 1987). This court has made an exception to 

this rule for in forma pauperis complaints. Id. Plaintiff here, 

however, is proceeding prose, but not in forma pauperis. Thus, 

the district court could not sua sponte dismiss plaintiff's 

complaint based on the affirmative defense of 

limitations. 

statute of 

Plaintiff's complaints against the defendants, however, fail 

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff's 

complaint against the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Program 

2 

Appellate Case: 87-1686 Document: 010110027520 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 2 
is that a professor of air military science at the University of 

Colorado asked plaintiff to withdraw from the training program. 

Similarly, plaintiff's complaint against the University of 

Colorado is that in 1969, he "was asked to withdraw from the 

Student Teaching Program offered by the School of Education at the 

University of Colorado . . . . [T]he plaintiff did so without 

comment." The plaintiff complains that these requests were not 

accompanied by due process protections. However, a "request" that 

plaintiff leave these programs, without more, did not require due 

process protections. Moreover, because plaintiff also states that 

he later completed the teacher certification program, his prayer 

for relief as to the University of Colorado, with the possible 

exception of the request for one dollar in damages, is now moot. 

Plaintiff's counts against the University of Colorado Law 

School include the complaint that unfavorable decisions of the 

admissions committee cannot be appealed except by reapplying. 

Plaintiff argues that due process requires a hearing before an 

impartial third party. Plaintiff further alleges that the Law 

School's admission process is the same one used by other law 

schools, and that this process is used by the ABA, the Association 

of American Law Schools, the Law School Admission Council, and the 

Law School Admission Services to deprive "Vietnam veterans with 

low grade point averages and low Law School Admission test scores" 

admission to law schools. Plaintiff contends that defendants' 

actions deprived him of Equal Protection of the laws an,d violated 

the spirit of the antitrust laws. These allegations do not state 

3 

Appellate Case: 87-1686 Document: 010110027520 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 3 
a federal cause of action. We accordingly affirm the district 

court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint on other grounds. 

In his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), plaintiff sought 

to raise new allegations that "plaintiff's experiences as a 

student and law school applicant may be related to long-standing 

rancor over disposition of his grandparents' estate." The 

district court properly denied this motion. 

The judgment of February 26, 1987, and the order of May 11, 

1987, of the United States District Court for the District of 

Colorado are AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 87-1686 Document: 010110027520 Date Filed: 02/23/1988 Page: 4