Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05099/USCOURTS-ca10-92-05099-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Denver Davenport
Appellee
Joseph Angelo Dicesare
Appellant
David Hays
Appellee
Chris Lundy
Appellee
Raymond Russell
Appellee
Jess Walker
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT SEP 4 1992 

~OBERT L. HOECKE!: 

JOSEPH ANGELO DISCESARE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

JESS WALKER, DENVER DAVENPORT, 

DAVID HAYS, CHRIS LUNDY, RAYMOND 

RUSSELL, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Cl~k . 

No. 92-5099 

(D.C. No. 91-C-0817-E) 

(N.D. Oklahoma) 

Before LOGAN, BARRETT and EBEL, 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 Joseph Angelo Dicesare appeals the district court's 

refusal to allow him to file a civil rights complaint in forma 

pauperis because that court found that the complaint was untimely 

* 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: 92-5099 Document: 010110309448 Date Filed: 09/04/1992 Page: 1
and hence should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). IR. 

tabs 2 and 5. The district court did grant leave to appeal to 

this court in forma pauperis. Id. tab 10. 

On October 17, 1991, plaintiff presented to the district 

court his complaint alleging violations of 42 u.s.c. §§ 1981, 

1982, 1983, 1985(2) and (3), and 1986 and various pendent state 

claims, along with his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. His 

complaint attempts to allege a conspiracy by defendants to steal 

plaintiff's cattle and cause the loss of his farm because of his 

Italian descent. Plaintiff has been convicted in an Oklahoma 

state court of larceny of a domestic animal after conviction of 

two felonies and has been sentenced to a twenty-five year term of 

imprisonment. That case apparently is still on appeal in the 

state court system. This suit is an attempt to hold liable the 

individuals whom plaintiff considers responsible for his prosecution in the state court. The defendants allegedly are a sheriff, 

deputy sheriffs, a temporary sheriff and a private citizen. 

One of plaintiff's arguments is that the defendants' conspiracy continues to within two years of the filing of his complaint. All of the acts plaintiff complains of were completed no 

later than September 1, 1989, the date plaintiff was found guilty 

(following a jury trial) and sentenced in the state proceedings. 

We agree with the district court that the statute of limitations 

applicable to plaintiff's claims is two years under Oklahoma law, 

Abbitt v. Franklin, 731 F.2d 661, 663 (10th Cir. 1984), and therefore is barred. Plaintiff also argues that these defendants are 

bound by statutory oaths to the state of Oklahoma, and because of 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-5099 Document: 010110309448 Date Filed: 09/04/1992 Page: 2
that this is an action arising under a contract and not subject to 

the two year limitations period. This latter argument is specious. 

The complaint states in one place that the alleged conspiracy 

is incomplete and plaintiff's brief argues that the conspiracy is 

still continuing. Nonetheless, the complaint alleges no facts 

which occurred within two years of October 17, 1991 and we find 

none in the record. Even if the complaint recites a conspiracy, 

presumably the conspiracy ended no later than the date larceny 

charges were partially refiled against plaintiff, April 12, 1989, 

also more than two years before October 17, 1991. None of the 

named defendants, even if they testified as witnesses at trial, 

are shown to have a role in the appeal of plaintiff's state conviction. Thus, we have no fact allegations in the complaint, and 

only general conspiracy claims in the briefs, to conclude that a 

conspiracy continues. Consequently, we must affirm the dismissal. 

Our review of the record reveals procedural irregularities 

which deserve some comment. Plaintiff's complaint was never filed 

by the district court, although it was retained in the file. Instead, the magistrate recommended the complaint be dismissed (as 

time-barred) without accepting the complaint for filing pursuant 

to plaintiff's in forma pauperis motion. That recommendation was 

adopted by the district court. At that juncture, the case was 

dismissed but had not been filed. Plaintiff filed a notice of 

appeal on April 27, 1992. Thereafter the magistrate judge on 

May 18, 1992, entered an order rum£ pro tune, in an apparent 

effort to have this matter conform procedurally with Bennett v. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-5099 Document: 010110309448 Date Filed: 09/04/1992 Page: 3
Passic, 545 F.2d 1260, 1261 (10th Cir. 1976), and our cases it 

follows. Those cases state that if the affidavit of poverty 

facially complies with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) the court should accept 

the complaint for filing and then dismiss under id.§ 1915(d) if 

the complaint is frivolous or the affidavit of poverty is shown to 

be untrue. The complaint here was never filed-stamped and was not 

submitted to us as part of the record. Because the complaint had 

been retained at the district court and we were able to secure it 

for our review, we treat this appeal as if the district court substantially complied with Bennett, and we regard these procedural 

defects as harmless error. 

AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-5099 Document: 010110309448 Date Filed: 09/04/1992 Page: 4