Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03082/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03082-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. O'Brien
Appellee
Terry Oliver
Appellant
W. Scott
Appellee
Unknown CIM Officer
Appellee
G. Wilkinson
Appellee

Document Text:

.,, 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

Unit.eel States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

OCT 1 5 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

TERRY OLIVER, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

G. WILKINSON, Regional Director; ) 

J. O'BRIEN, Warden; W. SCOTT, IDC ) 

Chairman; UNKNOWN CIM OFFICER, ) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

No. 91-3082 

(D. C. No. 87-CV-3248) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA 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 

Mr. Oliver appeals the dismissal of his prose civil rights 

suit and denial of permission to appeal in forma pauperis. 

* be 

for 

res 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-3082 Document: 010110090840 Date Filed: 10/15/1991 Page: 1 
-~ 

Mr. Oliver commenced this action on August 24, 1987. He 

asserted that when he was confined in the federal penitentiary at 

Leavenworth, Kansas, from August 1984 to April 1985, various 

employees of the penitentiary put him in danger and failed to 

protect his safety by placing him within the general penitentiary 

population. 

The trial court dismissed the complaint on three grounds: 

(1) failure to state a claim; (2) Defendants are entitled to 

qualified immunity; and (3) the action was time barred. 

Mr. Oliver appeals pro se asserting (1) the trial court 

should have been more lenient in reading his claim; (2) the 

qualified immunity ruling was based upon a faulty analysis; (3) 

the trial court erred in finding his complaint was time barred; 

and (4) the trial court erred concerning Mr. Oliver's many 

motions. 

We have examined the record on appeal. Mr. Oliver's filings 

consist of two files about four inches thick listing many 

grievances concerning his prison life while at Leavenworth. The 

common thread running through most of Mr. Oliver's complaints is 

that prison officials negligently classified him thereby placing 

him in danger. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3082 Document: 010110090840 Date Filed: 10/15/1991 Page: 2 
We find Mr. Oliver's claim is time barred and therefore do 

not reach the other issues he has raised on appeal. Mr. Oliver 

acknowledges the court applied the correct two-year statute of 

limitations but asserts the court was not justified in raising it 

when he had suggested the matter should not be tried. If the 

parties do not raise the question of lack of jurisdiction it is 

the duty of the federal court to determine the matter sua sponte. 

Tuck v. United States Auto. Ass'n, 859 F.2d 842,844 (10th Cir. 

1988). Mr. Oliver's argument is without merit. The court may, at 

any time, raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction and apply 

the statute of limitations. See K.S.A. 60-513(4) (Supp. 1990). 

The simple fact is that a Martinez report was filed as required by 

Martinez v. Aaron, 570 F.2d 317 (10th Cir. 1978). Mr. Oliver 

responded thereto, and there exists no dispute as to the time 

period involved. Mr. Oliver's claim expired in April 1987. 

This being the case, Mr. Oliver can make no rational or 

reasoned argument on either the facts or the law supporting his 

appeal on the key issue, that being his claims are time barred. 

Consequently, we must dismiss his appeal. The mandate shall issue 

forthwith . 

The appeal is DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-3082 Document: 010110090840 Date Filed: 10/15/1991 Page: 3