Court Opinion

ID: 9908141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-07 20:01:13.423149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:56.125260
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-1212      Document: 010110964747     Date Filed: 12/07/2023    Page: 1
                                                                                  FILED
                                                                      United States Court of Appeals
                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                               FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                       December 7, 2023
                           _________________________________
                                                                         Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                             Clerk of Court
  GRANT MITCHELL SAXENA,

           Plaintiff Counter Defendant -
           Appellant,

  v.                                                          No. 23-1212
                                                  (D.C. No. 1:22-CV-01769-DDD-SP)
  JEFFERY THOMAS ALLEN,                                        (D. Colo.)

           Defendant Counterclaimant -
           Appellee.
                         _________________________________

                               ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                           _________________________________

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

       Grant Saxena appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his complaint as

 barred by the statute of limitations, denying leave to amend as futile, and denying

 reconsideration. Because we agree that Saxena’s claims are untimely, we affirm,

 although we remand in part to allow the district court to decide a pending motion for

 costs that was left unadjudicated.

       *
         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 This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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. But it may be cited for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a);
 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
Appellate Case: 23-1212    Document: 010110964747        Date Filed: 12/07/2023      Page: 2

                                      Background

       Saxena’s complaint alleges that on July 15, 2020, Jeffery Allen physically

 assaulted Saxena and then inaccurately reported to law enforcement that Saxena had

 falsely imprisoned and robbed him.1 The complaint also alleges that Allen has

 stalked, harassed, threatened, and slandered Saxena.

       Saxena emailed his complaint to the clerk at 11:30 p.m. on July 15, 2022,

 which was a Friday. The clerk filed it the following Monday morning, July 18, 2022.

 As relevant here, Allen responded with counterclaims and a motion to dismiss

 suggesting that Saxena’s complaint was barred by the statute of limitations.

       A magistrate judge recommended dismissing Saxena’s complaint as untimely,

 concluding that the applicable statute of limitations was two years and that Saxena’s

 July 18, 2022 complaint was untimely by three days. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-

 102(1)(a) (providing two-year statute of limitations for various tort actions).

       The district court overruled Saxena’s objections to the recommendation and

 likewise concluded that the complaint was time-barred, but it did so for a slightly

 different reason. Like the magistrate judge, the district court rejected Saxena’s

 arguments that his complaint should have been deemed filed as of his July 15, 2022

 email to the clerk and concluded that the complaint was properly filed on July 18,

 2022, under a local rule governing how to file documents outside the court’s

       1
         Both Saxena and Allen proceeded pro se below and continue to do so on
 appeal. We therefore liberally construe their filings, but we will not act as an
 advocate for either party. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d
 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005).
                                            2
Appellate Case: 23-1212     Document: 010110964747        Date Filed: 12/07/2023     Page: 3

 electronic filing system. But that conclusion was not ultimately determinative

 because the district court held that the applicable statute of limitations was one year,

 not two. In support, it noted that a more specific statute applied to Saxena’s claims of

 assault, libel, and slander. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-103(1)(a) (providing a one-

 year statute of limitations for assault, libel, and slander, among others). So the district

 court dismissed Saxena’s complaint, denied leave to amend as futile, and later denied

 reconsideration.2

        Saxena appeals.3

        2
           The district court noted that Allen had indicated he would voluntarily dismiss
 his counterclaims if Saxena’s complaint were dismissed, so it directed Allen to file a
 notice of dismissal by a particular date. Allen did not do so, and he also took no
 further action. So the district court dismissed Allen’s counterclaims without prejudice
 for failure to prosecute. See Olsen v. Mapes, 333 F.3d 1199, 1204 n.3 (10th Cir.
 2003) (noting district court’s authority to dismiss claims sua sponte based on failure
 to prosecute or comply with court’s orders). Allen did not file a notice of appeal from
 that ruling and does not challenge it in his response brief.
         3
           Saxena’s notice of appeal was premature because it predated the district
 court’s entry of final judgment, but it ripened into timeliness after the district court
 dismissed Allen’s counterclaims for failure to prosecute and entered final judgment.
 See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2) (“A notice of appeal filed after the court announces a
 decision or order—but before the entry of the judgment or order—is treated as filed
 on the date of and after the entry.”); Lewis v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 850 F.2d 641, 645
 (10th Cir. 1988) (en banc) (explaining that when “other claims were effectively
 dismissed after the notice of appeal was filed, . . . [Rule] 4(a)(2) permits the
 interpretation that the notice of appeal, filed prematurely, ripens and saves the
 appeal”). This is because the dismissal of Allen’s counterclaims was for failure to
 prosecute and was not “a voluntary dismissal . . . to manufacture finality.” Amazon,
 Inc. v. Dirt Camp, Inc., 273 F.3d 1271, 1275 n.4 (10th Cir. 2001); cf. Heimann v.
 Snead, 133 F.3d 767, 769 (10th Cir. 1998) (“Parties may not confer appellate
 jurisdiction upon us by obtaining a voluntary dismissal without prejudice of some
 claims so that others may be appealed.”).
                                             3
Appellate Case: 23-1212      Document: 010110964747        Date Filed: 12/07/2023   Page: 4

                                             Analysis

        Saxena argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint and

 denying him leave to amend based on futility. Our review is de novo. See Plaza

 Speedway Inc. v. United States, 311 F.3d 1262, 1266 (10th Cir. 2002) (noting de

 novo review of “a district court’s ruling regarding the applicability of a statute of

 limitations” (quoting Indus. Constructors Corp. v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 15

 F.3d 963, 967 (10th Cir. 1994))); Cohen v. Longshore, 621 F.3d 1311, 1315 (10th

 Cir. 2010) (noting de novo review of futility finding).

        As an initial matter, Saxena suggests that the district court erred in

 adjudicating the statute-of-limitations issue at the dismissal stage. But “when the

 dates given in the complaint make clear that the right sued upon has been

 extinguished,” courts are free to resolve statutes-of-limitations issues on a motion to

 dismiss. Sierra Club v. Okla. Gas & Elec. Co., 816 F.3d 666, 671 (10th Cir. 2016)

 (quoting Lee v. Rocky Mountain UFCW Unions & Emp’rs Tr. Pension Plan, 13 F.3d

 405, at *1 (10th Cir. 1993) (unpublished table decision)). Here, the relevant dates

 appear in Saxena’s complaint, and he does not suggest otherwise on appeal, so the

 district court did not err on this basis.

        Next, Saxena argues that the district court wrongly applied a one-year statute

 of limitations rather than a two-year statute of limitations. In support, he contends

 that the district court misconstrued his complaint as asserting only claims for assault,

 libel, and slander, which are plainly subject to the one-year statute of limitations in

 § 13-80-103(1)(a). Instead, according to Saxena, he also brought a claim for

                                                4
Appellate Case: 23-1212    Document: 010110964747         Date Filed: 12/07/2023     Page: 5

 intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by Allen’s allegedly inaccurate

 reporting of false imprisonment and theft, which would be subject to the more

 general two-year statute of limitations in § 13-80-102(1)(a).

       But there are no allegations in Saxena’s complaint suggesting that he sought to

 assert a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress; his allegations about

 Allen’s false reports to law enforcement are framed in terms of slander and libel.

 Indeed, Saxena’s motions to amend his complaint likewise described his action as a

 “personal[-]injury complaint for assault, libel[,] and slander.” R. vol. 2, 80

 (capitalization standardized). The district court therefore did not err in determining

 that a one-year statute of limitations applied to Saxena’s claims for assault, slander,

 and libel.4 See § 13-80-103(1)(a). And under that deadline, Saxena’s complaint was

 untimely, and amendment would have been futile.5 So we affirm the district court’s

 dismissal order.

       Two final matters require our attention. First, Saxena faults the district court

 for failing to rule on his motion seeking to impose process-service costs on Allen.

 Our review of the record indicates that the district court never ruled on this motion

       4
          To be sure, the district court perhaps inaccurately suggested that Saxena
 alleged a claim of false imprisonment when he in fact alleged that Allen lied about
 being falsely imprisoned. But that mischaracterization does not mean that any of
 Saxena’s claims are subject to the two-year statute of limitations and is not cause for
 reversal.
        5
          Given this conclusion, we need not reach Saxena’s argument that his
 complaint—which he emailed late on Friday, July 15, 2022, but which the clerk did
 not file until Monday, July 18, 2022—should be deemed timely under a two-year
 statute of limitations.
                                             5
Appellate Case: 23-1212    Document: 010110964747        Date Filed: 12/07/2023   Page: 6

 (perhaps understandably, given the voluminous and repetitive filings from both

 Saxena and Allen below). We therefore remand for the district court to adjudicate

 Saxena’s pending motion. Second, we reject Saxena’s invitation to strike Allen’s

 response brief.

                                       Conclusion

       Because Saxena’s claims are untimely under the applicable one-year statute of

 limitations, we affirm the district court’s orders dismissing his complaint, denying

 him leave to amend, and denying reconsideration. But we remand for the district

 court to assess Saxena’s motion for costs in the first instance.

                                             Entered for the Court

                                             Nancy L. Moritz
                                             Circuit Judge

                                             6