Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03235/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03235-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Phalius Cenatus
Appellant
Deputy John Heitman
Appellee
Sheriff of Wichita County Jail
Appellee
U.S. Marshall Richard Schroeder
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

PHALIUS CENATUS, aka JIM REMY 

and JUMEAU ONNETTE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

U.S. MARSHALL RICHARD SCHROEDER; 

DEPUTY JOHN HEITMAN; SHERIFF OF 

WICHITA COUNTY JAIL, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

.. A.N l 4 199i 

ROBERT L. HOEG!ir ~ 

Clerk 

No. 90-3235 

(D. C. No. 89-3032-R) 

( D. Kan. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

* 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: 90-3235 Document: 010110076370 Date Filed: 01/14/1991 Page: 1 
Mr. Cenatus appeals the decision of the district court that 

dismissed his pro se complaint for the reason that his cause of 

action was barred by the statute of limitations. 

On January 23, 1989, Mr. Cenatus, while an inmate, filed a 

pro se complaint wherein he sued the United States Marshal in 

Kansas as well as the Sheriff of McPherson County, Kansas, and his 

deputy. This complaint alleged that Mr. Cenatus was arrested on 

February 6, 1985, for "bond jumping" and was incarcerated in the 

county jail for five and one-half months, and while incarcerated 

the defendants deprived him of various constitutional rights 

including, by way of illustration, failing to advise him of his 

rights; using false information against him; requiring him to 

undergo medical examinations; denial of commissary privileges; and 

denying him recreation. He also alleged he has been incarcerated 

ever since for unconnected subject matters. Mr. Cenatus sought 

over $15,000,000 in damages. 

The district court dismissed the action after finding the 

two-year Kansas statute of limitations was applicable. Kan. Stat. 

Ann. § 60-513(4) (1983). Mr. Cenatus appealed this decision to 

this court (Case No. 89-3045), and on June 26, 1989, we reversed 

and remanded. The basis of this order and judgment was that Mr. 

Cenatus's case was controlled by the Tenth Circuit decision in 

Brown v. Bigger, 622 F.2d 1025 (10th Cir. 1980), wherein we held 

that the Kansas statute of limitations, by its own content, was 

tolled while a person was incarcerated. Id. at 1026. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3235 Document: 010110076370 Date Filed: 01/14/1991 Page: 2 
Upon remand, the district court concluded that our order and 

judgment of June 29, 1989, was in error. The district court noted 

that in 1981, following our decision in Brown, the Kansas 

legislature changed its law. The applicable statute then and now 

reads: 

Notwithstanding the foregoing provision, 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. 

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-515(a) (1983). The district court then 

found Mr. Cenatus failed to demonstrate he was denied access to 

the courts during his period of incarceration and concluded the 

statute of limitations was not tolled. 

dismissed the action. 

The district court 

Our standard for reviewing the district court's dismissal of 

a prose complaint is summarized in Gillihan v. Shillinger, 872 

F.2d 935 (10th Cir. 1989), where we said: 

We review the district court's dismissal of 

plaintiff's complaint de novo, since the sufficiency of 

a complaint is a questionoflaw. See Morgan v. City of 

Rawlins, 792 F.2d 975, 978 (10th Cir. 1986). A 

complaint should not be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b}(6} unless the court concludes, as a matter of law, 

that the plaintiff can prove no facts that would entitle 

him to relief. Id. 

In reviewing a dismissal for failure to state a 

claim, we presume that all of plaintiff's allegations 

are true and construe them in the light most favorable 

to him. Id. See also Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 

1526 (10th Cir. 1988-)-.-Furthermore, we construe pro se 

pleadings liberally and hold them to "less stringent 

standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." 

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). 

Id. at 938. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3235 Document: 010110076370 Date Filed: 01/14/1991 Page: 3 
On appeal, Mr. Cenatus argues only that "the Kansas statute 

of limitation is tolled by plaintiff's incarceration." Mr. 

Cenatus makes no argument he was denied access to the courts 

during his incarceration, nor can he. 

In its most recent dismissal of Mr. Cenatus's complaint, the 

district court again relied on the two year Kansas statute of 

limitations. This statute is found at Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-513(4) 

(1983), and it applies to actions for injury to the rights of 

another, including civil rights. Our review of the statute 

convinces us it is the proper one to apply. See Cowdrey v. City 

of Eastborough, 730 F.2d 1376, 1378 (10th Cir. 1984): Massey v. 

Shepack, 12 Kan. App. 2d 770, 757 P.2d 329, 332 (1988). Also, as 

already noted, the statute of limitations is not tolled if the 

person had access to the courts for purposes of bringing suit. 

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-515(a) (1983). 

Mr. Cenatus requests permission to proceed in forma pauperis. 

We grant this permission due to the unique history of this case. 

We have carefully considered the arguments raised by Mr. 

Cenatus in his briefs and have reviewed the record on appeal. We 

find no evidence in the record showing Mr. Cenatus was denied 

access to the courts. Therefore, the two year statute of 

limitations applies and we AFFIRM the judgment of the district 

court for substantially the same reasons set forth by the district 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-3235 Document: 010110076370 Date Filed: 01/14/1991 Page: 4 
court in his Memorandum and Order dated July 2, 1990, a copy of 

which is attached hereto. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-3235 Document: 010110076370 Date Filed: 01/14/1991 Page: 5 
A072A 

(RIV, 8/82) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS J:1 ~'. i j c. 6 1W '90 

., 

i , 

PHALIUS CENATUS, a/k/a 

!"" ·\)' . : 1·-\ ~ r; v e,· ).. · I • • ,_,· -·( ·- -· . ' ,, . .._ .. .-..: 

Jim Remy and Jumeau Onette, _··; _, -~-- - 'J 

Plaintiff, 

v. CASE NO. 89-3032-R 

U.S. MARSHAL RICHARD SCHROEDER, 

et al., :- - --.... :· _- ·•, ...... ' ·.- -~ .. , ., .• , .. ·;-

. ~r ~ ~ · -s·o -· ···· 

dismiss. 

Defendants. ' .t '~ ., . ..... 

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 

This matter is before the court on defendants' motions to 

Having reviewed the motions and plaintiff's responses 

thereto, the court makes the following findings and order. 

Plaintiff initially filed his complaint with this court on 

January 23, 1989, alleging deprivations of his constitutional rights 

by the defendants during the period of time between October 6, 1985, 

and March of 1986. On February 3, 1989, the court issued an order 

dismissing this action because of plaintiff's failure to file the 

action within the time period provided by the relevant statute of 

limitations. Plaintiff appealed the order to the Tenth circuit of 

Appeals. On June 29, 1989, the Tenth Circuit issued an order 

remanding the matter to this court for further proceedings. 

Specifically, the Tenth Circuit held that, based upon the case of 

Brown v. Bigger, 622 F.2d 1025 (10th Cir. 1980), the statute of 

limitations was tolled because of plaintiff's incarceration. 

In his motion to dismiss, defendant Mike Hill argues that 

plaintiff is barred from relief by the relevant Kansas statute of 

Appellate Case: 90-3235 Document: 010110076370 Date Filed: 01/14/1991 Page: 6 
. . 

A072A 

(Rev. 8/82) 

limitations. Hill argues that the Tenth Circuit's order of June 29, 

1989, was erroneous because the Kansas Legislature amended the 

statute of limitations following the Brown decision to include the 

following language: "Notwithstanding the foregoing provision, if a 

person in prison 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." K.S.A. 60-515(a) (1981). Hill further asserts 

that plaintiff was not denied access to the courts during his period 

of incarceration from October 6, 1985, to February 14, 1986, in the 

Sedgwick County Jail. 

After review, the court agrees with defendant Hill and finds 

that the statute of limitations has run and plaintiff is precluded 

from litigating this action. In Garcia v. Wilson, 731 F.2d 640 (10th 

Cir. 1984), aff'd 105 s. Ct. 1938 (1985), the Tenth Circuit Court of 

Appeals held that civil rights actions should be characterized as 

violations of personal rights and should be governed by the similar 

state statute of limitations. Turning to the appropriate Kansas 

statute, K.S.A. 60-513(4) provides for a two year statute of 

limitations for an "injury to the rights of another." Thus, having 

filed this action on January 23, 1989, plaintiff is clearly beyond 

the applicable time limit for filing this action. Further, the court 

finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated that he was denied access 

to the courts during his period of incarceration. Accordingly, the 

court concludes that the statute of limitations was not tolled. See 

K.S.A. 60-515(a). 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-3235 Document: 010110076370 Date Filed: 01/14/1991 Page: 7 
• 

A072A 

(Rev. 8/821 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed and all 

relief denied. The clerk of the court is directed to transmit copies 

of this order to plaintiff and to counsel for defendants. 

DATED: This ;2.vJ. day of July, 1990, at Topeka, Kansas. 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-3235 Document: 010110076370 Date Filed: 01/14/1991 Page: 8