Court Opinion

ID: 9959325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-11 16:00:48.063174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:16.381867
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-7033     Document: 010111030552      Date Filed: 04/11/2024   Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         April 11, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                            Clerk of Court
  MICHAEL LYNN CASH,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                         No. 23-7033
                                                 (D.C. No. 6:22-CV-00009-JFH-JAR)
  CITY OF DURANT; CHRIS CICIO;                               (E.D. Okla.)
  TIMOTHY MCEACHERN; BRYAN
  COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
  COMMISIONERS; UNKNOWN
  OFFICERS, Durant Police Department;
  UNKNOWN OFFICERS, Bryan County
  Sheriff’s Department,

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, BALDOCK, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       Michael Lynn Cash filed a pro se complaint asserting claims under 42 U.S.C.

 § 1983. The district dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. He now

 appeals. 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 This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
Appellate Case: 23-7033    Document: 010111030552       Date Filed: 04/11/2024    Page: 2

 I.    Background

       Cash filed his complaint in January 2022. In Claims 1 through 3, he alleged

 that he was subjected to excessive force during a traffic stop in 2011. In Claim 4, he

 alleged that evidence tampering led to his wrongful conviction on federal charges

 stemming from contraband discovered in his car during the traffic stop.1

       On April 5, 2023, the City of Durant and Chris Cicio (hereafter, Defendants)

 moved to dismiss Cash’s complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of

 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).2 Defendants argued that Claims 1 through 3 were barred

 by the applicable two-year statute of limitations and that Claim 4 was barred by Heck

 v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994). The district court referred the case to a

 magistrate judge the following day.

       A.      Report and Recommendation

       On April 10, 2023, the magistrate judge issued a Report and Recommendation

 (R&R) to dismiss Cash’s action with prejudice. The R&R reviewed the complaint

 under both Rule 12(b)(6) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The magistrate judge cited Aldrich

 v. McCulloch Props., Inc., 627 F.2d 1036, 1041 n.4 (10th Cir. 1980), for the

 propositions that (1) claims can be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) if it is clear from

       1
         Cash was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to distribute
 methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C); of
 possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of
 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A); and of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation
 of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). See United States v. Cash, 733 F.3d 1264,
 1267 (10th Cir. 2013).
       2
           The remainder of the named defendants had not been served.
                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-7033     Document: 010111030552          Date Filed: 04/11/2024      Page: 3

 the face of the complaint that they are untimely and (2) a plaintiff has the burden to

 establish a factual basis for tolling the statute of limitations.

        Cash’s Claims 1 through 3, which he filed in 2022, alleged excessive force

 during a traffic stop in 2011. Cash alleged in the complaint that these claims were

 timely because the head injury he sustained during the traffic stop caused him to

 suffer memory loss. The magistrate judge construed this allegation as seeking to

 equitably toll Oklahoma’s two-year statute of limitations based on a legal disability,

 which includes plaintiffs who are minors or whose competency is impaired. See

 Alexander v. Oklahoma, 382 F.3d 1206, 1217 (10th Cir. 2004).

        The R&R cited Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989), as allowing

 a court to pierce the veil of a complaint’s factual allegations when reviewing claims

 under § 1915. The magistrate judge concluded that Cash’s memory-loss allegation

 was not credible. A decade earlier, Cash had moved in his criminal case to suppress

 statements he made to a police officer during the traffic stop. He testified at a

 hearing in 2012 that, after he was hit in the head, he could not remember anything

 that happened until he reached the jail’s booking area. The magistrate judge

 concluded:

        Plaintiff’s current claim of memory loss in support of tolling the statute of
        limitations simply has no factual basis. Nearly ten (10) years ago, both the
        trial court and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, found no merit in
        Plaintiff’s arguments regarding memory loss in support of suppressing his
        statements. Today, this Court finds no merit in that same argument being
        used in an attempt to toll the statute of limitations.

                                              3
Appellate Case: 23-7033      Document: 010111030552       Date Filed: 04/11/2024    Page: 4

 R. at 60. The magistrate judge also pointed to two civil actions Cash filed during the

 period of his alleged memory loss, each of which he litigated for a number of years,

 and concluded that “Plaintiff’s previous litigation in two federal lawsuits, in which he

 represented himself pro-se, clearly demonstrates he is more than able to conduct his

 own business affairs over time and is sufficiently competent to render him ineligible

 for ‘legal disability’ tolling.” Id.

        The R&R also acknowledged the second basis for tolling under Oklahoma law,

 the “discovery rule,” which “tolls the statute of limitations until an injured party

 knows of, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of or

 discovered the injury, and resulting cause of action.” Alexander, 382 F.3d at 1217

 (internal quotation marks omitted). The magistrate judge noted this exception applies

 when “defendants engage in false, fraudulent or misleading conduct calculated to lull

 plaintiffs into sitting on their rights.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). But the

 magistrate judge did not construe Cash’s memory-loss allegation in his complaint as

 asserting this basis for tolling.

        The R&R next addressed Cash’s Claim 4, in which he sought damages based

 upon the allegation that he was wrongfully convicted on the federal charges

 stemming from the 2011 traffic stop. The magistrate judge concluded this claim was

 barred by Heck because Cash’s conviction had not already been invalidated and a

 judgment in his favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction. See

 512 U.S. at 487.

                                             4
Appellate Case: 23-7033    Document: 010111030552        Date Filed: 04/11/2024      Page: 5

       Concluding that amendment would be futile, the magistrate judge

 recommended dismissal with prejudice of Cash’s action against all defendants. The

 R&R advised Cash of the fourteen-day deadline to file objections and the

 consequences of failing to do so. See R. at 64.

       B.     Subsequent Filings in District Court

       After the magistrate judge issued the R&R on April 10, 2023, Cash moved to

 stay the action because he was being transferred to a different prison. The district

 court denied Cash’s motion. On April 28, Defendants notified the district court that

 Cash had not received service by mail of their motion to dismiss. Cash did not file a

 response to Defendants’ motion, nor did he file objections to the R&R.

       On May 2, after neither party had filed objections during the fourteen-day

 period, the district court entered an order summarily adopting the R&R. The court

 stated that “[t]he apparent failure to serve [the motion to dismiss] has no bearing on

 the Court’s acceptance of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, as a

 copy of the Report and Recommendation was properly served on Plaintiff and

 Plaintiff had an opportunity to object.” R. at 65 n.1. The district court entered

 judgment dismissing Cash’s action with prejudice. Later that same day, the court

 docketed a notice that the R&R mailed to Cash had been returned as undelivered.

       On May 15, Cash signed a notice of change of address and a notice of appeal,

 both of which were docketed in the district court on May 23.

                                            5
Appellate Case: 23-7033    Document: 010111030552        Date Filed: 04/11/2024      Page: 6

 II.   Firm Waiver

       “This court has adopted a firm waiver rule under which a party who fails to

 make a timely objection to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations

 waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions.” Morales-Fernandez v.

 INS, 418 F.3d 1116, 1119 (10th Cir. 2005). This rule is subject to certain exceptions.

 See id. This court ordered Cash to show cause why he had not waived his right to

 appeal by failing to file timely objections to the R&R. Cash filed a response, and the

 parties have addressed this issue further in their briefs. Cash argues he did not

 receive the R&R. Defendants argue that Cash has not invoked an exception to the

 firm waiver rule; under federal and local civil rules, when the R&R was mailed by

 the district court to Cash’s last known address, service was complete and the R&R

 was deemed delivered; Cash bears some responsibility for failing to receive the R&R;

 and Cash does not demonstrate plain error. Without deciding whether Cash’s failure

 to file objections to the R&R resulted in a waiver, we exercise our discretion to

 overlook any waiver and reach the merits of Cash’s appeal arguments. See United

 States v. Walker, 918 F.3d 1134, 1153 (10th Cir. 2019) (“[W]hether issues should be

 deemed waived is a matter of discretion.”); Engberg v. Wyoming, 265 F.3d 1109,

 1119 (10th Cir. 2001) (declining to decide whether the firm waiver rule applied

 because “the claims are barred in any event”).

                                            6
Appellate Case: 23-7033    Document: 010111030552         Date Filed: 04/11/2024     Page: 7

 III.   Merits3

        We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim

 under § 1915 and Rule 12(b)(6). See Conkle v. Potter, 352 F.3d 1333, 1335

 (10th Cir. 2003). “While the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, when 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.” See Aldrich, 627 F.2d at 1041 n.4. In such a case, a statute of limitations

 question may be resolved on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. See id. In screening a

 complaint under § 1915, a district court has “the unusual power to pierce the veil of

 the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual

 contentions are clearly baseless.” Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1216

 (10th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). We liberally construe Cash’s

 pro se filings in deciding this appeal, but we do not act as his advocate. See James v.

 Wadas, 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013).

        Cash elaborates on his memory-loss tolling theory in his appellate filings. He

 claims that he recently remembered that, during the traffic stop in 2011, he was

 ordered at gunpoint not to move and he followed that order. He contends that he

        3
         Cash does not raise any challenge to the district court’s dismissal of his
 Claim 4 as barred by Heck. See Aplt. Opening Br. at 4 (stating that he “understands
 the ‘Heck’ bar” and acknowledging his conviction has not been set aside). We
 therefore address only the district court’s dismissal of Claims 1 through 3 as
 untimely.
                                             7
Appellate Case: 23-7033    Document: 010111030552        Date Filed: 04/11/2024     Page: 8

 filed his excessive-force claims within two years of recovering his memory that he

 did not resist arrest and that he was beaten for no reason.

       As to the R&R’s reasoning in denying tolling, Cash argues that the issue in his

 criminal case was whether his statement during the traffic stop was coerced, rather

 than whether his memory was affected. But we did consider the effects of Cash’s

 alleged injury. See United States v. Cash, 733 F.3d 1264, 1282 & n.14 (10th Cir.

 2013) (citing an officer’s testimony that Cash did not appear injured or confused and

 noting Cash did not file an excessive-force claim or seek medical attention after his

 arrest). And we were not persuaded that Cash’s statement was involuntary based on

 the limited evidence of his memory loss. See id. at 1282. More to the point, Cash

 admitted in his opening brief in his criminal appeal that he had resisted arrest. See

 Aplt. Opening Br. at 3, 13, United States v. Cash, Nos. 12-7072 & 12-7079 (10th Cir.

 Mar. 15, 2013). And although Cash claims to have only recently remembered being

 ordered not to move, this court described an officer giving Cash that order, and then

 ordering him to get out of the vehicle, in our decision affirming his conviction in

 2013. Cash, 733 F.3d at 1269.

       Cash further argues that his ability to litigate other pro se actions during the

 alleged period of memory loss says nothing about whether he suffered the memory

 disruption he claims. But his litigation activity in these other two lawsuits

 demonstrates that he has not suffered memory loss to the extent that he has been

 incapable of conducting his own business affairs, as is required for tolling based upon

 a legal disability. See Alexander, 382 F.3d at 1217.

                                            8
Appellate Case: 23-7033     Document: 010111030552      Date Filed: 04/11/2024      Page: 9

       Cash also argues that defendants engaged in misleading conduct by stating that

 he resisted arrest. We construe this contention as invoking the second basis for

 tolling on the ground that defendants engaged in misleading conduct that lulled Cash

 into sitting on his rights. See id. But this argument also fails based on the R&R’s

 conclusion that Cash’s memory-loss allegation is not credible.

       Cash does not demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in

 concluding he was not entitled to equitable tolling on Claims 1 through 3.

 IV.   Conclusion

       We affirm the district court’s judgment. We grant Cash’s motion to proceed

 on appeal without prepayment of fees and costs and his motion to file a supplemental

 reply brief out of time.

                                            Entered for the Court

                                            Nancy L. Moritz
                                            Circuit Judge

                                           9