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 state 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 appellate 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 judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

1

 Because Mr. Richardson represents himself, 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: 1
2 

I. BACKGROUND2

 

Mr. Richardson alleged that on October 28, 2020, his family called 911 based 

on concerns for his mental health—at the time, he was an “active client of Green 

Country Behavioral Health Services, Inc.” for diagnosed posttraumatic stress disorder. 

R. at 11. Muskogee Police Officers Nolan Philpott and Christopher Rochell responded 

to the call. The officers initiated their interaction with Mr. Richardson by searching 

him and punching him on his front porch. Mr. Richardson’s mother screamed for the 

officers to stop and told them that he needed mental health attention, but Officers 

Philpott and Rochell continued punching Mr. Richardson, kneed 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 responded by punching him and forcibly pushing him into their 

patrol car. After leaving him in the car for about thirty minutes, they drove him to the 

jail. When they arrived at the jail, a jail nurse told Officers Philpott and Rochell to 

take Mr. Richardson to the hospital. 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 injuries 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., Inc. 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 conclusory allegations, must 

be taken as true, and the court must liberally 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: 2
3 

and private area. Mr. Richardson 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. His complaint charged that Officers Philpott 

and Rochell violated his rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth 

Amendments to the United States Constitution. 

The MPD moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 limitations 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 dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). 

Brokers’ Choice, 861 F.3d at 1104. Under this standard, we accept as true all 

well-pleaded factual allegations and view them in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff. Id. at 1105. “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain 

3

 Mr. Richardson filed a “Notice of Appeal to Opinion and Order” with the 

district court on July 26, 2023. The following day, because he did not sign that 

document, we ordered him to file a signed 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 functional equivalent of a notice of appeal under 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c). See Fleming v. Evans, 481 F.3d 1249, 

1253–54 (10th Cir. 2007). 

Appellate Case: 23-7053 Document: 010111060088 Date Filed: 06/04/2024 Page: 3
4 

sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state 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 personal injury claims supply the limitations periods for § 1983 

claims, . . . but federal law governs the 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 limitations 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). Regarding the time of accrual, our 

precedent instructs that “[s]ince the injury in a § 1983 case is the violation of a 

constitutional right, such claims accrue when the plaintiff knows or should know that 

his or her constitutional rights 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. Richardson’s § 1983 claims occurred on 

October 28, 2020. The district court determined that the limitations period on 

Appellate Case: 23-7053 Document: 010111060088 Date Filed: 06/04/2024 Page: 4
5 

Mr. Richardson’s claims accrued that day, and Mr. Richardson has not argued that we 

should conclude otherwise. Relatedly, because Oklahoma’s two-year statute of 

limitations applies, the district court was correct that Mr. Richardson needed to file his 

§ 1983 action by October 28, 2022. 

Mr. Richardson filed his complaint on November 21, 2022, over three weeks 

past the deadline. He does not offer a basis for tolling the statute 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 been extinguished, the plaintiff has the burden 

of establishing a factual basis for tolling the statute. Statute of limitations questions 

may, therefore, be appropriately resolved on a [Rule] 12(b) motion.” (internal citations 

omitted)). 

Finally, because Mr. Richardson’s argument that the district court should not 

have dismissed his complaint without first examining the officers’ bodycam footage is 

unsupported, we decline to consider it. See Kelley v. City of Albuquerque, 

542 F.3d 802, 819 (10th Cir. 2008) (“[P]erfunctory” allegations of error that “fail[] to 

frame and develop an issue” are insufficient “to invoke appellate review.” (internal 

quotation marks omitted)). 

Appellate Case: 23-7053 Document: 010111060088 Date Filed: 06/04/2024 Page: 5
6 

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