Palmer v. Buge, et al

Filing 920100913

Opinion

U n i t e d States Court of Appeals T e n t h Circuit

FILED

S e p t e m b e r 13, 2010
U N I T E D STATES COURT OF APPEALSl i s a b e t h A. Shumaker E T E N T H CIRCUIT
C l e r k of Court

R O G E R PALMER, on behalf of h i ms e l f and all others similarly situated, P l a i n t i f f - Appellant, v. R I T A BUGE; KATHY LA MOINES; C R A I G LA MOINES; BARBARA O L D A N I ; VINCENT ROSS, AKA S k i p p e r Ross; TONY ROSS; C H E Y E N N E POLICE D E P A R T M E N T ; LARAMIE C O U N T Y DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, D e f e n d a n t s - Appellees. N o . 10-8037 ( D . Wyoming) ( D . C . No. 2:09-CV-00201-ABJ)

O R D E R AND JUDGMENT * B e f o r e HARTZ, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

A f t e r examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined u n a n i mo u s l y that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of t h i s appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is t h e r e f o r e ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is n o t binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, a n d collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value c o n s i s t e n t with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

*

R o g e r Palmer appeals pro se from a district-court order granting the mo t i o n s to dismiss of the defendants, and from later orders denying his motions f o r reconsideration. We affirm the district court. The Laramie County District A t t o r n e y ' s office is protected from suit by sovereign immunity and Mr. Palmer's c l a i ms are time-barred. I. BACKGROUND M r . Palmer filed his complaint on August 25, 2009, in the United States D i s t r i c t Court for the District of Wyoming. On February 12, 2010, he filed an a me n d e d complaint. The complaint is so discursive that it is virtually impossible t o determine what he believes to be his causes of action, but his primary issue a p p e a r s to be a search and seizure on May 23, 2005, and he appears to be suing u n d e r 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 19, 2010, the district court dismissed the case w i t h prejudice. One ground for the dismissal was that the complaint was barred b y the applicable statute of limitations. Mr. Palmer later filed several motions s e e k i n g reconsideration, which the district court denied in orders on April 13 and 2 0 , 2010. Mr. Palmer appealed on April 28, and we have jurisdiction under 2 8 U.S.C. § 1291. II. DISCUSSION T h e statutory limitations period in Wyoming for claims under § 1983 is f o u r years. See Sullivan v. Bailiff, 867 F. Supp. 992 (D. Wyo. 1994); Parkhurst v. L a m p e r t , 264 F. App'x 748, 749 (10th Cir. 2008). The events Mr. Palmer
-2-

c o mp l a i n s of allegedly occurred on May 23, 2005. This was more than four years b e f o r e he filed his original complaint on August 25, 2009, so his claims are b a r r e d . Although Mr. Palmer argues in his reply brief that his claims are not b a r r e d because there is "[n]o statute of limitations for any criminal prosecution," A p l t . Reply Br. at 13, Mr. Palmer filed a civil law suit, and criminal statutes of l i mi t a t i o n s are not relevant to his claims. Some events alleged in the complaint o c c u r r e d after the 2005 search; but we can discern no causes of action against any o f the defendants that could be based on those alleged events, particularly since mo s t of the allegations concern the district attorney's office, which is protected a g a i n s t suit by sovereign immunity, see Board of Trustees v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 3 5 6 , 363 (2001); Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 9-1-801 to -811. III. CONCLUSION W e AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of Mr. Palmer's case and its o r d e r s denying reconsideration. We DENY his motion for leave to proceed in f o r m a pauperis. E N T E R E D FOR THE COURT H a r r i s L Hartz C i r c u i t Judge

-3-