A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a 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. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . FI LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als

Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### O c t ob e r 31, 2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT I S S I AKA I . NAMOKO,

P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, N o. 07- 1171 v. ( D . C ol or ado) M I L GAR D M ANUF AC T UR I NG I NC OR P OR AT E D,

D efe ndant- A ppel l ee. ( D. C. No . 0 6 - c v - 2 0 3 1 - WDM - M E H)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. Iss iak a N a m o k o a p p e a ls p ro se f ro m th e d istric t co u rt’s d ism iss a l o f h is T itl e V II c o m p lain t as b a rre d b yth e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s. W e c o n c lu d e th a t h is compl ai ntw as t i m el ybeca us e undert he pec ul i arfac t s of thi s cas e, t he l i m i t at i ons per i od s houl d have be en t ol l ed dur i ng the pende ncyof hi s appl i cat i on t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a up e ris . W e a g r e e wi th t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r t , h o we v e r , th a th i s c l a i ms-2-

arisi n g o u t of

a p ri o r co n sen t dec ree w ere im p rop er in this ca se. W e the refo re affirm i n p art , rever se i n p art , and rem and for further proceedings. I . BA CKGROUND O n D ece m ber11, 2005, M r . N amoko fi l ed a di s cr i m i nat i on char ge w i th t he E q u al E m p loym en t O p p o rtu n ityC o m m issi o n (E E O C ). H e a ll eg ed that M il g ard M a n u fa c tu rin g , In c . (M ilg a rd ) h a d u n law f u llyre f u se d to h ire h im b a se d o n h is r ace , col or , and nat i onal or i gi n. H e r ece i ved a not i ce of r i ghtt o s ue on J une 29, 2 0 0 6 . O n J ul y28, 2006, M r . N amoko subm i t t ed t o the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C o u rt fo r t h e D is tr ic t o f C o lo ra d o b o th a c o m p la in t a n d a n a m e n d e d c o m p la in t. O n A u g u st 3 , p e r o rd e r o f th e m a g istra te ju d g e , the c o u rt c ler k c o m m e n c e d a c iv il act i on , fi l i ng bo th co m plai nts un der case num ber 06-cv-151 2. T he o rderal so d ire c ted M r. N a m o k o to c u re d e ficie n c ies in h is p lea d in g s, g iv in g h im 3 0 d a y s to r es ubm i thi s compl ai nton the pr operform and t o s ubm i tei thera fi l i ng fee oran appl i cat i on forl eave t o pr ocee d i n form a p auperis (IF P ). In re sp o n se to th is or der , M r . N amoko on S ept ember1, 2006, s ubm i t t ed a thi r d dr aftof the compl ai nt and an I FP m ot i on and affi davi t . A l though the new compl ai ntw as on the pr oper form , the di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed i tw i thoutpr ej udi ce on Sept ember15, 2006, b e c a u s e th e fo rm c o n ta in in g h is IF P m o tio n a n d a ffid a v it w a s m is s in g a p a g e . O n Sept ember29, 2006, M r . N amoko subm i t t ed hi s four th dr aftof the compl ai ntand a ne w I FP appl i cat i on w i th a mot i on r eques t i ng r econs i der at i on of-3-

the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t o di s m i s s the ea r l i ercompl ai nt s , or , i n the al t ernat i ve, request i ng that the co urtfi l e t he n ew com plai nt w i th “a n ew case num ber . ” M ot . forR econs . , N o. 06- cv- 1512, Sept . 29, 2006. I n an or derdat ed O c to b e r 1 1 , 2 0 0 6 , the c o u rt c o n stru e d th e m o tio n a s a m o tio n u n d e r F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 5 9 (e ), w h ic h it d e n ie d , a n d c o m m e n c e d a n e w c iv il a c tio n . T he new cas e numberw as N o. 06- cv- 2031. T he O ct ober11 or derw as fi l ed and docket ed on O ct ober12 i n bot h cas e number s 06- cv- 1512 and 06- cv- 2031. T he four th compl ai ntand the I FP appl i cat i on w er e fi l ed i n N o. 06- cv- 2031 on O ct ober12. T he compl ai ntal l eged the fol l ow i ng: W hen M r . N amoko cal l ed t o chec k the s tatu s o f e m p loym en t app li ca ti o n s tha t he h ad fil ed w ith M il g ard , M il g ard e m p lo y e e s m a d e f

u n o f h im , m im ick e d h is a c c e n t, pla c e d h im o n h o ld in d e fin itely , a n d h u n g u p o n h im . W h e n h e a rriv e d in p e rso n , h e w a s a sk e d to leav e. In c o n tr ast, ap p li ca n ts of o ther rac es w ere tr ea ted w ith resp ec t, w ere perm i t t ed t o m eetw i th hum an r es our ces per s onnel , and w er e offer ed j obs “aut om at i cal l y . ” R . V ol . I D oc. 3 at3–4. T he compl ai nts t at ed thatM r . N amoko had recei ved his ri gh t -t o-sue no t i ce from t he E E O C on June 2 9, 20 06 . Ital so m ent i oned a c ons entdecr ee e nt er ed i n C ol or ado fe der al di s tr i ctcourti n M ay2004 i n a ca s e br oughtbythe EE O C agai ns tM i l gar d. T he compl ai ntal l eged thathe w as an “appr ove[d] cl as s m ember , ” id . at6, and s oughta fa i rnes s hear i ng, as p ro v id e d in th e c o n s e n t d e c re e .-4-

O n D ece m ber28, 2006, M i l gar d fi l ed a M ot i on t o D i s m i s s , ori n the A l t ernat i ve, M ot i on t o St r i ke ( M i l gar d’ s M ot i on) . Fi r s t , i ts oughtdi s m i s s al of M r . N amoko’s compl ai ntas t i m e- barr ed. T i t l e V I I of the C i vi l R i ght s A ctof 1964 gi ves an aggr i eved pe r s on 90 day s fr om the dat e of r ece i vi ng the r i ght - t os u e n o tic e to file a c o m p la in t. See 42 U . S. C . § 2000e- 5( f) ( 1) . M i l gar d ar gued thatbeca us e M r . N amoko had r ece i ved the r i ght - t o- s ue not i ce on J une 29, 2006, he had unt i l Sept ember27, 2006, t o fi l e the l aw s ui t ; s o the compl ai nts ubm i t t ed on Sept ember29 and fi l ed on O ct ober12 w as t oo l at e. I n the al t ernat i ve, M i l gar d’ s M ot i on as ked the di s tr i ctcourtt o s tr i ke the port i ons of the compl ai nt r el at i ng t o the cons entdecr ee. I ns ofaras M r . N amoko soughta fa i rnes s hear i ng affor ded bythe cons entdecr ee, as s er t ed M i l gar d, he coul d s ubm i ta pet i t i on i n t he cas e i n w hi ch the dec r ee w as ent er ed. O n J anuary4, 2007, M r . N amoko fi l ed a r es pons e appa r ent l yas s er t i ng ( t he r es pons e i s di ffi cul tt o compre hend) thathi s compl ai nthad bee n fi l ed w i thi n 90 day s aft erhe r ece i ved the r i ght - t o- s ue not i ce, buthe di d notcontr adi ctthe s t at ementi n hi s compl ai ntt hathe had r ece i ved the r i ght - t o- s ue not i ce on J une 29, 2006. M r . N amoko al s o oppos ed the mot i on t o s tr i ke and a r gued thathe w as e n title d to a h e a ri n g b e c a u s e M ilg a rd w a s n o t c o m p lyin g w ith th e c o n s e n t d e c re e . T he magi s tr at e j udge r ecomm ended thatM i l gar d’ s M ot i on be gr ant ed beca us e M r . N amoko’s compl ai ntw as unt i m el y . T he magi s tr at e j udge expl ai ned thatM r . N amoko w as notent i t l ed t o t ol l i ng of the 90- dayl i m i t at i ons per i od,-5-

beca us e the ea r l i erl aw s ui t( N o. 06- cv- 1512) di d nott ol l the l i m i t at i ons per i od and ther e w as no evi dence thatM i l gar d had enga ged i n anyw r ongdoi ng that w oul d ent i t l e M r . N amoko t o equi t abl e t ol l i ng. T he magi s tr at e j udge r ecomm ended i n the al t ernat i ve thatM r . N amoko’s al l egat i ons r egar di ng the cons entdecr ee be s tr i cken a s i m m at er i al t o hi s T i t l e V I I compl ai nt . O n A pr i l 6, 2 0 0 7 , the d istri ct co u rtissue d an o rde r ac ce p ti n g the m ag istrate jud g e’s r ecomm endat i on on M i l gar d’ s M ot i on. M r . N amoko fi l ed a t i m el ynot i ce of a p p e a l. W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . I I . DI S CU S S I ON M r. N a m o k o ’s b rie f

o n a p p e a l is v e ryd ifficu lt t o u n d e rsta n d . M u c h o f it a p p e a r s t o r e l a t e t o h i s c l a i ms a r i s i n g o u to f t h e c o n s e n td e c r e e . Al s o , h e s e e ms to a rg u e th a t h is R u le 5 9 (e ) m o tio n in c a se N o . 0 6 -c v -1 5 1 2 w a s tim e lya n d sh o u ld h a v e b e e n g ra n te d . A s foranycl ai m s thatM r . N amoko m ayhave a r i s i ng outof the cons ent decr ee, he mustfi l e a pl eadi ng i n the ca s e i n w hi ch i tw as ent er ed, beca us e the c o u rt in th a t c a s e h a s s o le ju ri s d ic tio n to e n fo rc e th e c o n s e n t d e c re e . See Figur es v. B d. of P ub. Ut i ls . of

Kans as C i t

y, Kan. , 9 6 7 F .2 d 3 5 7 , 3 6 1 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). W e th e r e fo r e a ffi r m th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n i n s o fa ra s i td i s mi s s e s a l l c l a i ms ar i s i ng outof the cons entdecr ee. T ur ni ng t o t he t i m el i nes s of M r . N amoko’s compl ai nti n thi s cas e, w e agr ee w ith th e d istric t co u rt th a t th e c o m p lain t w a s n o t filed w ith in 9 0 d a y s o f th e rig h t--6-

to -su e n o tice . T h e so le is su e is w h e th e r M r. N a m o k o is e n tit led to e q u itab le t ol l i ng. A l though M r . N amoko’s br i efs ar e part i cul ar l ydi ffi cul tt o under s t and, he has ar gued, both befor e us and dur i ng di s tr i ct - courtpr ocee di ngs , hi s bel i ef that hi s fi l i ngs w er e t i m el y . A w ar e of thi s , the magi s tr at e j udge expr es s l ycons i der ed the ques t i on w hetherhi s s ui tcoul d be s aved byappl i cat i on of the doctr i ne of equ i t able t oll i ng . S o d i d the di stri ctcou rt . M i nd ful of ou r obl i gati on s t o p ro se l i t i gant s , w e fol l ow s ui t . I n doi ng s o, w e not e that , on not i ce of the pot ent i al appl i cabi l i tyof equi t abl e t ol l i ng, M i l gar d had the oppor tuni tyt o addr es s the q u e s tio n b o th b e fo re th e d is tr ic t c o u rt a n d o u r o w n , a n d it h a s d o n e s o a t le n g th . W e h a v e h e ld th a t th e lim itatio n s p e rio d is to lled in a T itl e V II c a se w h ile a n IF P a p p lic a tio n is p e n d in g b e fo re th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . See J ar r et tv. US Spr i nt C om m c’ ns C o. , 22 F. 3d 256, 259 ( 10th C i r . 1994) . H er e, unl i ke i n J a rr e tt , the per i od thatw oul d be t ol l ed— fr om the s ubm i s s i on of the I FP appl i cat i on on Sept ember1, 2006, unt i l deni al of the appl i cat i on on Sept ember15— w as i n an e a rlier c a se , n o t th e c a se d ism iss e d w ith p reju d ice a s u n tim e ly . B u t th e u lti m a tely acc ept ed r eques tforI FP w as s ubm i t t ed i n the or i gi nal cas e, al bei tw i th a mot i on forr econs i der at i on. I f the di s tr i ctcour thad gr ant ed thatr eques ti n the or i gi nal c a s e , J a rr e ttw oul d have r equi r ed t ol l i ng and the compl ai nts ubm i t t ed on Sept ember29, 2006, w oul d have be en t i m el y . ( T he 90- dayper i od w oul d have e x p ire d o n S e p tem b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 6 , b u t th e p e rio d w a s to lled f ro m S e p tem b e r 1 to Sept ember15 w hi l e the I FP appl i cat i on w as pendi ng befor e the court . ) W e do not-7-

th in k th a t M r. N a m o k o ’s fo u rth c o m p lain t sh o u ld b e re n d e re d u n tim e lysim p ly beca us e the di s tr i ctcourtexer ci s ed i t s di s cr et i on t o or derthati tbe fi l ed i n a new ca se ra ther tha n in the o n e in w h ich it w as o ri g inallysu b m itted. W e the refo re con cl ud e t hat M r. N am ok o’s com plai nt w as t i m el y . W e need no tadd res s M r . N amoko’s cont ent i ons r egar di ng di s covery , beca us e theycan be r evi s i t ed on re m a n d . I I I . CO NC L US I ON W e A FFIRM the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s rul i ng s tr i ki ng the cl ai m s of the compl ai nt ar i s i ng outof the cons entdecr ee, R E V E R SE t he court ’ s di s m i s s al of M r. N am ok o’s l aw sui tas unti m el y , and R E M A N D for further proceedings.

ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

H a rris L H a rtz C i r cui tJ udge