Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01219/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01219-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Louis DiEugenio
Appellee
Ivard L. Frazar
Appellant
Nelson Nadeau
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

IVARD L. FRAZAR, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

Pl LED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JAN 10 1990 

~OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

V • ) 

) 

LOUIS DiEUGENIO and NELSON NADEAU, ) 

) 

No. 89-1219 

(D.C. No. 89-F-756) 

(District of Colorado) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, ANDERSON, AND BALDOCK, 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 is an inmate of the Texas prison system. He f i led 

the underlying complaint against defendants who are social workers 

with the Jefferson County, Colorado, Department of Social Services. He seeks monetary damages for alleged unconstitutional deprivation of his rights to his children when they were removed from 

* 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. 

Appellate Case: 89-1219 Document: 01019959034 Date Filed: 01/10/1990 Page: 1 
Texas to Colorado. Although the actual taking of the children was 

made by relatives, the plaintiff apparently claims that the subsequent dependency and neglect proceeding instituted by the social 

workers, where termination of parental rights was sought, deprived 

him of his relationship with his children. Plaintiff's own documents demonstrate that he was represented by counsel in the 

Colorado proceedings. The actions he complains of, according to 

his own complaint, occurred sometime on or around October of 1980. 

The Supreme Court has held that courts entertaining actions 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 should borrow the state statute of limitations for personal injury. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 266-

280 (1983). When a state, such as Colorado, has multiple statutes 

of limitations for personal injury actions, the general or residual statute for personal injury should be applied to§ 1983 

claims. Owens v. O'Kure, U.S. , 109 S.Ct. 573, 582 (1989). 

Today, the Colorado general statute of limitations for tort 

actions, including interference with relationships, is two years. 

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-102(l}(a} (1987). At the time this 

action arose in 1980, the applicable statute of limitations was 

three years. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-108(l}(b} (1973). The 

trial court properly dismissed the complaint on the grounds that 

the statute of limitations had expired. In addition, our review 

of the complaint and the objections to the magistrate's report in 

this case make clear that the plaintiff has failed to set forth 

36.3. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1219 Document: 01019959034 Date Filed: 01/10/1990 Page: 2 
r 

sufficiently specific acts of the defendants which would establish 

any colorable civil rights claim against those named defendants. 

The dismissal of this action is AFFIRMED. The mandate shall 

issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-1219 Document: 01019959034 Date Filed: 01/10/1990 Page: 3