Jurrel Duchaun Black v. Bill Dillon, Sheriff, 42 F.3d 1406 (10th Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Jurrel Duchaun Black v. Bill Dillon, Sheriff, 42 F.3d 1406 (10th Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
47 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: David L. Witt v. Peggy Svety, et al. (ksd, 2026-05-22)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) David L. Witt v. Peggy Svety, et al.
D. Kan. · 2026 · confidence medium
Even if Defendant Houston had improperly opened the letter, the Tenth Circuit has “held that an isolated incident of opening protected legal mail, without any evidence of improper motive or resulting interference with [the] right to counsel, does not give rise to a constitutional violation. [Citation omitted.]” Penrod v. Furlong, 42 F.3d 1406, *2 (10th Cir. Dec. 1, 1994) (unpublished).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moore v. Hebert
D. Kan. · 2024 · confidence medium
Corp. of Am., 441 F. App’x 600, 601 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing Frederick v. Oklahoma, 42 F.3d 1406, 1406 (10th Cir. 1994)). 36 Id.; see also Lyons v. Kyner, 367 F. App’x 878 , 881–82 (10th Cir. 2010). 37 Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536, 539 (1989). 38 McDonough v. Smith, 588 U.S. 109, 115 (2019) (quoting Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Davis v. United States Department of Justice
D. Kan. · 2023 · confidence medium
Corp. of Am., 441 F. App’x 600, 601 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing Frederick v. Oklahoma, 42 F.3d 1406, 1406 (10th Cir.1994)). of action, federal courts apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury actions to claims asserted under §§ 1983, 1985, and Bivens.117 State law also governs questions of tolling, unless state tolling rules would “defeat the goals” of § 1983.118 Federal law, however, determines when § 1983 claims accrue.119 In Kansas, the statute of limitations for personal injury actions is two years.120 Under federal law, § 1983 claims generally accrue “…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Barnett v. Correction Corp. Of America
10th Cir. · 2011 · confidence medium
Frederick v. Oklahoma, 42 F.3d 1406, 1406 (10th Cir.1994).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Walton
D. Kan. · 1996 · confidence medium
Penrod v. Furlong, 42 F.3d 1406, 1406 (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 , 99 S.Ct. 1861 , 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979)); Bledsoe v. Biery, 992 F.2d 1222, 1222 (10th Cir.1998). 2.
cited Cited "see" Boulden v. Stephenson
D.N.M. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ernst v. Thurlow, 42 F.3d 1406 [published in full-text format at 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 33683 , at *5–6] (10th Cir. Nov. 30, 1994) (unpublished table opinion).
discussed Cited "see" Arnold (ID 90705) v. Wichita, City of, Police Department
D. Kan. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Baker v. Colo. Springs Police Dep’t, 42 F.3d 1406 , 1994 WL 673070, at *1 (10th Cir. Nov. 30, 1994) (holding that city police department was not susceptible to suit because it was “merely a subunit” of city government).
discussed Cited "see" Allen v. DeLand
10th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Allen v. Deland, 42 F.3d 1406 (10th Cir.1994) (Table), 1994 WL 593917 . 6 On November 14, 1994, plaintiff filed a motion for attorney's fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 , which provides in part: "In any action or proceeding [under § 1983] ... the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs." Id. § 1988(b).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jurrel Duchaun Black
v.
Bill Dillon, Sheriff
94-3194.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Oct 26, 1994.
42 F.3d 1406
Published

42 F.3d 1406

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

Jurrel Duchaun BLACK, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Bill DILLON, Sheriff, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 94-3194.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Oct. 26, 1994.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT[*]

Before McWILLIAMS, BARRETT and LOGAN, Senior Circuit Judges.

BARRETT, Senior Circuit Judge.

1

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Tenth Cir.R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

2

Jurrel Duchaun Black, appearing pro se, appeals from the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice.

3

We grant appellant's motion for leave to proceed on appeal without prepayment of costs or fees in order to reach the merits.

4

Black filed this action in the nature of a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 civil rights complaint while incarcerated in the Wyandotte County Detention Center, Kansas City, Kansas, on charges of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer. He was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. The action was treated by the district court as a 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus because Black sued only the sheriff of Wyandotte County, Kansas, contending that he had been unlawfully arrested and improperly detained. Black sought immediate release from custody and 17.7 million dollars in punitive damages. Black alleged that law enforcement officers entered his home and conducted a search without a search warrant or probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and unlawfully arrested him and have held him in custody without due process of law.

5

The district court issued an order to show cause why Black's complaint should not be construed as a petition for habeas corpus relief and dismissed without prejudice, subject to Black availing himself to state court remedies. In response, Black alleged that he had filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a Kansas state district court but no action had been taken thereon, even though he (Black) had been detained without a trial setting for a period in excess of seven months.

6

In dismissing Black's petition without prejudice, the district court found that the state district court granted a continuance in Black's criminal trial at the request of his counsel, that a second delay was attributable to the withdrawal of his defense counsel, and that new counsel had been appointed for Black and the case reset for trial. Under these circumstances, the court found that Black had not exhausted available state court remedies. We agree.

7

We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court's "Memorandum and Order" of June 8, 1994.

*

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of the court's General Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470