UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ KERRY COHEE RICHARDSON, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. NOLAN PHILPOTT; CHRISTOPHER ROCHELL; MUSKOGEE POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants - Appellees. No. 23-7053 (D.C. No. 6:22-CV -00335-RAW-DES) (E.D. Okla.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before MORITZ , ROSSMAN , and FEDERICO , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Kerry Richardson, an Oklahoma st ate prisoner proceeding pro se, 1 appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgme nt is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1 Because Mr. Richardson represents himsel f, we construe his filings liberally. See Hall v. Bellmon , 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 ( 10th Cir. 1991). FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### June 4, 2024 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 23-7053 Document: 010111060088 Date Filed: 06/04/2024 Page: 12 I. BACKGROUND 2 Mr. Richardson alleged that on October 28, 2020, his family called 911 based on concerns for his mental health—at the tim e, he was an “active client of Green Country Behavioral Health Services, Inc.” for diagnosed posttrauma tic stress disorder. R. at 11. Muskogee Police Officers Nola n Philpott and Christopher Rochell responded to the call. The officers in itiated their interaction with Mr. Richardson by searching him and punching him on his fr ont porch. Mr. Richardson’s mother screamed for the officers to stop and told them that he needed mental heal th attention, but Officers Philpott and Rochell continued punching Mr. Richardson, kn eed him, twisted his arms, and said that he was going to jail. They then dragged him to their patrol car. Mr. Richardson further alleged that when he asked Officers Philpott and Rochell what he had done, they res ponded by punching him and forcib ly pushing him into their patrol car. After leaving him in the car for about thirty mi nutes, they drove him to the jail. When they arrived at the jail, a jail nurse told Officers Ph ilpott and Rochell to take Mr. Richardson to the ho spital. At the hospital, a catheter was forced into Mr. Richardson’s penis, and he did “not receiv[e] proper attention” from the hospital staff. Id. at 10. He sustained in juries to his head, neck, back, shoulder, collarbone,

2 The following facts are taken from the well-pleaded allegations in Mr. Richardson’s complaint. See Brokers' Choice of Am., In c. v. NBC Universal, Inc. , 861 F.3d 1081, 1105 (10th Cir. 2017) (“In ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, all well-pleaded facts , as distinguished from c onclusory allegations, must be taken as true, and the court must liber ally construe the pleadings and make all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)). Appellate Case: 23-7053 Document: 010111060088 Date Filed: 06/04/2024 Page: 23 and private area. Mr. Richar dson ultimately alleged that he is “still seeing doctors right now for mental and physical injuries.” Id. On November 21, 2022, Mr. Richardson sued the Muskogee Police Department (MPD) and Officers Philpott and Rochell. Hi s complaint charged that Officers Philpott and Rochell violated his right s under the First, Fourth, Fi fth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The MPD moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Pro cedure 12(b)(6) and, in a separate motion, Officers Philpott and Rochell did the same. On July 17, 2023, reasoning that the applicable statute of lim itations barred Mr. Richardson’s complaint and that the MPD was not a suable entity, the district court granted both motions and entered judgment against Mr. Richardson. Mr. Richardson now appeals the dismissal of his § 1983 claims. 3
II. DISCUSSION We review de novo a dismis sal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Brokers’ Choice , 861 F.3d at 1104. Under this st andard, we accept as true all well-pleaded factual al legations and view them in th e light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. at 1105. “To survive a motion to di smiss, a complaint must contain

3 Mr. Richardson filed a “Notice of App eal to Opinion and Order” with the district court on July 26, 2023. The fo llowing day, because he did not sign that document, we ordered him to file a si gned notice of appeal by August 25. Mr. Richardson did not file a signed notice of appeal, but we construe his August 11 “Memorandum of Disclosure” as the functiona l equivalent of a no tice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appella te Procedure 3(c). See Fleming v. Evans , 481 F.3d 1249, 1253–54 (10th Ci r. 2007). Appellate Case: 23-7053 Document: 010111060088 Date Filed: 06/04/2024 Page: 34 sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to st ate a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). We likewise “review de novo a district court’s ruling regarding the applicability of a statute of limitations.” Sierra Club v. Okla. Gas & Elec. Co. , 816 F.3d 666, 671 (10th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). “State statutes of limitations applicable to general persona l injury claims supply the lim itations periods for § 1983 claims, . . . but federal law governs th e time of accrual of § 1983 claims.” Beck v. City of Muskogee Police Dept. , 195 F.3d 553, 557 (10th Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). Oklahoma’s statute of limitati ons for general personal injury claims is two years.
See Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 95(A)(3); Meade v. Grubbs , 841 F.2d 1512, 1522 (10th Cir. 1988), abrogated on other grounds by Schneider v. City of Grand Junction Police Dep’t , 717 F.3d 760 (10th Cir. 2013). Rega rding the time of accrual, our precedent instructs that “[s]in ce the injury in a § 1983 case is the violation of a constitutional right, such claims accrue wh en the plaintiff knows or should know that his or her constitutional right s have been violated.” Beck , 195 F.3d at 557 (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, § 1983 claims arising from police actions “are presumed to have accrued when the actions actually occur.” Johnson v. Johnson Cnty. Comm’n Bd. , 925 F.2d 1299, 1301 (10th Cir. 1991). The incidents giving rise to Mr. Ri chardson’s § 1983 claims occurred on October 28, 2020. The dist rict court determined th at the limitations period on Appellate Case: 23-7053 Document: 010111060088 Date Filed: 06/04/2024 Page: 45 Mr. Richardson’s claims accrue d that day, and Mr. Richar dson has not argued that we should conclude otherwise. Relatedly, because Oklahoma ’s two-year statute of limitations applies, the district court was corr ect that Mr. Richardson needed to file his § 1983 action by October 28, 2022. Mr. Richardson filed his complaint on N ovember 21, 2022, over three weeks past the deadline. He does not offer a basi s for tolling the statut e of limitations, so dismissal of his § 1983 action was appropriate. See Aldrich v. McCulloch Props., Inc. , 627 F.2d 1036, 1041 n.4 (10th Cir. 1980) (“[W]hen the dates given in the complaint make clear that the right sued upon has b een extinguished, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing a factual basis for tolling th e statute. Statute of limitations questions may, therefore, be appropriate ly resolved on a [Rule] 12(b) motion.” (internal citations omitted)). Finally, because Mr. Richardson’s argumen t that the district court should not have dismissed his complaint without first examining the officers’ bodycam footage is unsupported, we declin e to consider it. See Kelley v. City of Albuquerque , 542 F.3d 802, 819 (10th Cir. 2008) (“[P]erfunctory” allegati ons of error th at “fail[] to frame and develop an issue” are insufficient “to invoke a ppellate review.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Appellate Case: 23-7053 Document: 010111060088 Date Filed: 06/04/2024 Page: 56 III. CONCLUSION We affirm the district court’s judgment.

Entered for the Court

Richard E.N. Federico Circuit Judge Appellate Case: 23-7053 Document: 010111060088 Date Filed: 06/04/2024 Page: 6