T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h is co u rt gener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a ss ista n c e in th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly7,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT ALEJ AN DR O A RT SAN CH EZ, P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, vs. R. C. DANI E L S ; L AR RY DAMRON; WI L L I AM RO N P UT M AN; M I KE B U R G E S S ; T E R E S A MU L I C A N ; J . M. KE L L Y; VE RN WI L S ON; J AS ON HUS T E D, D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 6337 ( D. C. No. CI V- 0 4 - 1 0 4 0 - L) (W .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. ** P lai n ti ff-A p p ell an t A lej an d ro A rtS an ch ez , a state p ri so n er a p p ea ri n g p ro se, ap p ea ls th e d ism issal of h is acti o n u n d er 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 . A cc o rdin g to M r. Sanchez , hi s r i ght s underthe Four th and Four t eenth A m endment s w er e vi ol at ed- 2 -

byO kl ahoma l aw enfor cementoffi cer s dur i ng t he cour s e of a tr aff i c s t op. T he di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed the ac t i on as t i m e- barr ed bythe appl i cabl e tw o- y ear statu te of

li m it ati o n s. T h e d istri ct co u rth eld, on alt ern ati v e g rou n d s, that M r. Sanchez ’ cl ai m w as al s o barr ed bythe rul e enunc i at ed i n H eck v. H um phr ey , 512 U. S . 4 7 7 ( 1 9 9 4 ) . Ou rj u r i s d i c t i o n a r i s e s u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , a n d we a ffi r m. Backg r ound M r. S a n c h e z w a s a p a ss e n g e r in a v e h icle sto p p e d b yO k lah o m a S tate T r ooper s V ern W i l s on and C hance H us t ed on J une 20, 2002. I n the cour s e of the s t op, T r ooperW i l s on det erm i ned thatM r . Sanchez w as w ant ed on an out s t andi ng fede r al w arr ant , and he a r r es t ed M r . Sanchez . U pon the off i cer s ’ r eques t , t he dr i vergr ant ed hi s cons entt o s ear ch the vehi cl e. T he off i cer s di s cover ed fi ve b u n d les o f

w h a t w a s la ter d e ter m in e d to b e m e th a m p h e tam in e . A g e n ts D a n iels a n d D a m ro n , b o th o f

th e D istric t II M u lti -Ju risd ictio n a l D ru g T a sk F o rc e in E lk C i ty , O kl ahoma, arr i ved atthe s cene s om et i m e l at erand part i ci pat ed i n the q u e stio n in g o f

M r. S a n c h e z a n d th e o th e rs. M r. S a n c h e z p lea d e d g u iltyto pos s es s i on w i th i nt entt o di s tr i but e met hamphet ami ne and w as s ent ence d t o t en y e a rs im p ri s o n m e n t. O n A ugus t19, 2004, M r . Sanchez fi l ed thi s § 1983 act i on s eeki ng damages forvi ol at i ons of hi s ci vi l r i ght s . T he magi s tr at e j udge’ s r eportand r ecomm endat i on concl uded thathi s r aci al pr ofi l i ng cl ai m w as t i m e- barr ed andM r. S a n c h e z h a s n o t r a is e d th is is s u e b e fo re u s o n a p p e a l. 1 - 3 - r ecomm ended thatt he mot i ons t o di s m i s s on thos e gr ounds be gr ant ed. T he m ag istrate d eterm ined that the s tatu te of li m it ati o n s h ad n o t exp ir ed w ith reg ard to M r. S an ch ez ’s oth er c lai m s. T h e m ag istrate also rec o m m en d ed that M r. Sanchez ’ s m ot i on forentr yof a de faul tagai ns tO ffi cerW i l s on and H us t ed be d e n i e d . As n o t e d a b o v e , th e d i s tr i c tc o u r td i s mi s s e d a l l o f M r . S a n c h e z ’ c l a i ms 1 a s b a rre d b ylim itatio n s. T h e d istric t co u rt a lso d e n ied M r. S a n c h e z ’s m o tio n s to al t eroramend, w hi ch s oughtr el i ef f r om t he j udgm entof di s m i s s al and t o fi l e an a m e n d e d c o m p lain t. M r . Sanchez cont ended thatt he s ear ch and s ei zur e w as vi ol at i ve of the Four th A m endmenton the fol l ow i ng gr ounds : ( 1) he w as s ubj ect ed t o r aci al p rofil ing b yT roo p ers W il so n an d H u sted ; ( 2 ) O fficers D an iel an d D am ron w ere act i ng out s i de the s cope of thei rj ur i s di ct i on; and ( 3) t he C hi ef of Pol i ce a nd t he M ay orof El k C i ty , act i ng i n conce r tw i th the C us t erC ountySher i ff a nd a C us t er C ountyC om m i s s i oner , cons pi r ed t o vi ol at e hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s byperm i t t i ng E lk C itylaw en fo rce m en t office rs t o p erfo rm arrests o u tsi d e the city ’s j ur i s di ct i onal l i m i t s . O n appea l , he cha l l enges t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i ons t hat th e a c tio n w a s b a rre d b ylim itatio n s a n d b yH e c k . H e m a in tain s th a t h e sh o u ld have be en al l ow ed t o amend hi s compl ai ntt o over come H eck byal l egi ng thatt he drug evi dence agai ns thi m w oul d have be en admi s s i bl e, r egar dl es s of any cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on. Fi nal l y , he cont ends t hatt he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s j udgm ent- 4 -

w as w r ong beca us e he w as deni ed the oppor tuni tyfordi s coveryand w as not a p p o in ted c o u n se l.

D i s cus s i on W e r evi ew a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al forfai l ur e t o s t at e a c l ai m de novo. S e e Ya n a k i v . I o me d , I n c . , 4 1 5 F . 3 d 1 2 0 4 , 1 2 0 7 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 5 ) ; s e e a l s o F e d . R. C iv. P. 12 (b)(6 ); 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 (e)(2)(B )(i i) . W e a cc ep t al l of the p lai n ti ff ’s w e ll- p le a d e d fa c ts a s tru e a n d in th e lig h t m o s t fa v o ra b le to th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . Y anaki , 415 F. 3d at1207. L as t l y , s uch a mot i on s houl d notbe gr ant ed unl es s no s e t o f fa c ts e x is t f

ro m w h ic h th e p la in tiff w o u ld b e e n title d to re lie f. Id . I ti s w el l s ett l ed that§ 1983 cl ai m s ar e pr oper l ychar act er i zed a s per s onal i nj uryact i ons forpurpos es of det erm i ni ng the r el evantl i m i t at i on per i od. See O w ens v. O kur e, 488 U . S. 235, 239- 41 ( 1989) ; M eade v. G rubbs , 841 F. 2d 1512, 1522- 23 ( 10th C i r . 1988) . W e l ook t o the r el evants t at e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons ap p li ca b le t o su ch ac ti o n s. P ri ce v . P h il p o t, 4 2 0 F . 3 d 1 1 5 8 , 1 1 6 2 (10 th C ir . 2005) . A ccor di ngl y , O kl ahoma’ s t w o- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons , found i n O kl a. S ta t. A n n . tit. 1 2 , § 9 5 (3 ), a p p lie s to th e s e c la im s . Id . U p o n tho rou g h rev iew o f th e re co rd, w e c o n clud e tha t al l of M r. S an ch ez ’s cl ai m s agai ns tal l of the defendant s i nvol ve al l egat i ons of conduc toccurr i ng on J une 20, 2002, m or e than tw o y ear s pr i ort o the fi l i ng of the compl ai nt . See B eck v. C i tyof M us kogee Pol i ce D ep’ t , 195 F. 3d 553, 558 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ( hol di ng- 5 -

thata pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m thatthe pol i ce a ct ed out s i de thei rj ur i s di ct i on acc rued at the t i m e of the i nci dent ) . M r . Sanchez ’ s ar gum entthathe onl yl earned of the fa c tu a l b a c k g ro u n d su p p o rtin g th e c laim s f ro m a fe llo w in m a te m o n th s la ter is unavai l i ng. See H untv. B ennett , 17 F. 3d 1263, 1266 ( 10th C i r . 1994) ( hol di ng thatthe “c ont i nui ng vi ol at i on” exc ept i on i s i nappl i cabl e i n the abs ence of g o v ern m en tal ac ti o n su b seq u en t t o the in it ial interac ti o n ). A cc o rdin g ly , as M r. Sanchez fai l ed t o fi l e hi s compl ai ntunt i l A ugus t19, 2004, hi s cl ai m s ar e barr ed b ythe tw o y ea r st atute o f li m it ati o n s. P ri ce , 4 2 0 F . 3 d at 11 6 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). A s w e uphol d the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al of the compl ai nton l i m i t at i on g rou n d s, w e d ec li n e to a d d ress it s ad d it ion al an d alt ern ati v e g rou n d that M r. Sanchez ’ s cl ai m i s barr ed underH eck. A s s uch, w e fi nd no err orbas ed on the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of l eave t o amend, notal l ow i ng di s coveryornona p p o in tm e n t o f

c o u n se l. A FFIRM E D . M r . Sanchez r emai ns obl i gat ed t o cont i nue maki ng part i al p a ym e n ts o f

th e fili n g fe e u n til it i s p a id in f u ll. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge