* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate recor d, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered sub mitted without oral argument. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### APR 4 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

AARON LEE COLEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. DR. KATHY A. MORALL, M.D., Defendant - Appellee. No. 02-1099 (D.C. No. 98-N-1028) (D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before EBEL , KELLY , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges. **

Plaintiff-Appellant Aaron Lee Coleman, a state pris oner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights action against Dr. Kathy A. Morall. Mr. Coleman’s complaint, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleged that Dr. Morall violated his constitutional rights by fo rcing him to take anti-psychotic drugs during separate periods of incarceration at the Denver County Jail (“Denver- 2 -

County”). The district court granted Dr. Morall’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that Mr. Coleman failed to file his a ction within the applicable statute of limitations. Our jurisdiction arises un der 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Mr. Coleman was periodically incarcerated at DenverCounty as a pre-trial detainee between 1992 and 1994. Beginning in 1992, Dr. Morall, the treating physician at Denver County, ordered anti-psychotic medications to be administered to Mr. Coleman in at attempt to remedy the psychotic symptoms she believed he was exhibiting. Over Mr. Coleman’s obj ections, Dr. Morall ordered these medications to be administered via forcible i njection on at least three occasions. During his periods of confinement Dr. M orall also prescribed daily oral doses of the anti-psychotic drug Haldol, whichhe sometimes refused to take. Following his last period of confinement at Denver County, Mr. Coleman was confined at the Colorado State Penitentiary in Canon City from November 1994 to September 1996. On June 26, 1996, a neurol ogist, (“Dr. McNamara”), examined Mr. Coleman and diagnosed him with tardive dyskinesia, a condition characterized by an impairment of voluntary movemen t in the form of spasms or tics. Dr. McNamara further advised him that the co ndition was likely a side effect of the Haldol he had taken at Denver County. On April 28, 1998, Mr. Coleman filed a pro se compl aint against Dr. Morall1 The district court noted that even if it assumed that the statute was tolled

due to incompetence until late 1995, when Mr. Colem an claimed that he finally began “functioning coherently,” Aplee. App. at 184, his complaint would have still been untimely. Aplee. App. at 31.- 3 - alleging that she violated his constitutional right s by forcing him to take the aforementioned medications. The district court dis missed the complaint as legally frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (e)(2)(B), and on appeal we reversed and remanded the case to the district court to evaluate Mr. Coleman’s claims under the standard announced by the Supreme Court in Rigg ins v. Nevada , 504 U.S. 127 (1992). Coleman v. Morall , 172 F.3d 878 (table), 1999 WL 106803 (10th Cir. Mar. 3, 1999). On remand the district court appoin ted counsel for Mr. Coleman, and Dr. Morall filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that he failed to file his action within the applicable limitations period . Mr. Coleman responded that he did not know of the nature and extent of his inj ury, or the legal basis for his claim, until he met with Dr. McNamara on June 20, 1 996, and that his cause of action therefore did not accrue until that date. T he district rejected this argument and instead held that Mr. Coleman’s action accrued, at the latest, when he left Denver County in 1994, and that his April 28, 1998 complaint was therefore filed beyond the applicable two-year statute of limitatio ns. 1 On appeal, Mr. Coleman argues that the district cou rt erred because: (1) he was in administrative segregation during his confin ement at the Colorado State- 4 -

Penitentiary and was therefore “isolated . . . from any kind of help available,” Aplt. Br. at 2; (2) the district court should have equitably tolled the limitations period because he was unable to “think straight” du e the side effects of the medications, Aplt. Br. at 2, 3A; (3) he is entitled to tolling under Colorado law because Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-102.5 (3)(a) provi des that the limitations period begins to run only after the plaintiff has discover ed the act or omission giving rise to his or her action where the act or omission was knowingly concealed by the alleged tortfeasor; (4) he was entitled to tolling as a person under a disability pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-102.5 (3)(d)(I I); and (5) he filed a timely complaint because he did not discover his injury until his appointment with Dr. McNamara in June of 1996. We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, and apply the same legal standard applied by the district court. Ashley Cre ek Phosphate Co. v. Chevron USA, Inc. , 315 F.3d 1245, 1253 (10th Cir. 2003). Summary ju dgment is proper if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, indicates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 (c). Where the operative facts and dates are not in disp ute, we may determine as a matter of law when a cause of action accrued. See Smith v. City of Enid , 149 F.3d 1151, 1154 (10th Cir. 1998).- 5 -

Because Congress has not expressly provided a statute of limitations for actions brought under § 1983, such claims are subje ct to the statute of limitations of the general personal injury statute in the state where the action arose. See Wilson v. Garcia , 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985); Blake v. Dickason , 997 F.2d 749, 750 (10th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the district co urt properly determined that Colorado’s two-year statute of limitations for pers onal injury actions, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-102 (2001), applied to Mr. Coleman’s action. Although questions regarding tolling of the statute of limitations are governed by state law, Wilson , 471 U.S. at 269, federal law controls the issue of when a federal cause of action accrues. See Baker v. Bd. of Regents , 991 F.2d 628, 632 (10th Cir. 1993). As to Mr. Coleman’s arguments that he is entitled t o tolling of the statute of limitations by virtue of his isolation in admini strative segregation, his alleged mental incompetence, and Dr. Morall’s alleged conce alment of his injury, we hold that Mr. Coleman has waived these arguments by fail ing to raise them before the district court. In so holding we note that Mr. Col eman was represented by counsel in the proceedings below and that his attorneys had every opportunity to raise the arguments Mr. Coleman now presents on app eal. Instead, Mr. Coleman argued below that his cause of action did not accru e until June 1996, when he became aware of the nature and extent of his injuri es. Aplee. App. at 281-284. Absent “extraordinary circumstances,” we do not con sider arguments raised for- 6 -

the first time on appeal. McDonald v. Kinder-Morgan Inc. , 287 F.3d 992, 999 (10th Cir. 2002). We therefore decline to address these arguments. As to Mr. Coleman’s claim that his cause of actio n did not accrue until June 20, 1996, we note first that “[a] civil rights action accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.” Baker , 991 F.2d at 632. The injury which is the “basis of the action” in such a case is the violation of some constitutional right, not the physical, mental, or other harm that may have been occasioned by it. Se e Smith , 149 F.3d at 1154. The relevant inquiry is therefore whether Mr. Colem an knew, or had reason to know, of the injury which serves as the basis for h is action, namely, being forced to take anti-psychotic medications. We agree with the district court that Mr. Coleman understood that he was injured each time he was forced to take the medications. This conclusion is supported by the f act that Mr. Coleman repeatedly objected to the forced administration of the drugs, sometimes refused to take them altogether, and later testified that h e felt as though someone was attempting to rape him each time he was forcibly in jected. Aplee. App. at 501. Mr. Coleman argues that he did not become aware that his constitutional rights were violated until his appointment with Dr. McNamara in June of 1996, and that he therefore did not become aware of his i njury until that date. However, our review of relevant authority convinces us that a plaintiff need not understand- 7 -

the legal basis of his claim before the statute of limitations will begin to run. In United State v. Kubrick , 444 U.S. 111 (1979), the Supreme Court rejected the Third Circuit’s view that because “a c laim does not accrue until a plaintiff is aware of his injury and its cause, nei ther should it accrue until he knows or should suspect that the doctor who caused his injury was legally blameworthy.” Id. at 121-122. In so doing, the Court distinguished between a plaintiff’s awareness of “the fact of his injury orits cause” and “a plaintiff’s ignorance of his legal rights.” Id. at 122. Accordingly, the Court held that the plaintiff’s cause of action accrued on the date that he learned that he was injured, even if he did not know that the alleged tortfeasorwas negligent, because, as a plaintiff “armed with the facts about the harm done to him, [he] can protect himself by seeking advice in the medical and legal community.” Id. at 123. Although the plaintiff’s claim in Kubrickwas brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act rather than § 1983, the rat ionale set forth therein applies equally here. That is, in determining when a cause of action has accrued, where the plaintiff is aware of both the fact that he has been injured and its cause, federal courts should not postpone accrual of the c ause of action until the plaintiff has realized the legal basis of his claim. Id. at 122-123. We therefore reject Mr. Coleman’s claim that because he did not realize that his rights were violated until June of 1996, his cause of action did not accrue un til that date.- 8 -

We likewise reject Mr. Coleman’s argument that he r ealized the full extent and nature of the harm caused by the medications on ly after he met with Dr. McNamara, and that his cause of action therefore di d not accrue until June 1996. “A plaintiff need not know the full extent of his i njuries before the statute of limitations begins to run.” Indus. Constructors Co rp. v. Powers , 15 F.3d 963, 969 (10th Cir. 1994). Furthermore, because the relevant injury in a civil rights action is the violation of a constitutional right, it woul d be analytically incorrect to link accrual of a cause of action under § 1983 to a plai ntiff’s knowledge concerning the extent of the harm the constitutional violation might have caused. Thus, the fact that Mr. Coleman did not realize until June of 1996 that he had tardive dyskinesia and that the condition was likely a side effect of the medications will not defer accrual of his cause of action until thatdate. AFFIRMED. Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge