Cluster 166321

The Court finds that Ms. Clark’s claims against Sheriff West likewise accrued on the date of the alleged incident: August 31, 2021.15 As set forth, “[s]ince the injury in a § 1983 case is the violation of a constitutional right, such claims accrue ‘when the plaintiff knows or should know that his or her constitutional rights have been violated.’” Smith, 149 F.3d at 1154 ; Price, 420 F.3d at 1162 (“A civil rights action accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know o…

See Price, 420 F.3d at 1165 (“[T]he inmate must attest that such a timely filing was made and has the burden of proof on this issue.”). 3 Consistent with the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice against defendants Dr. Kapil Grewal, Ms. C.

See, e.g., Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1167 (10th Cir. 2005) (“However, regardless of whether this claim is treated as a motion to reconsider under Rule 59, Rule 60(b), or as an interlocutory motion before any final judgment, we do not find the court abused its discretion in this case.”).

Stat. tit. 12, § 95 (A)(3)); see also Price, 420 F.3d at 1162 (“Oklahoma’s two-year statute of limitations applies.”).

See Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[A]n inmate seeking to take advantage of the mailbox rule must use the prison’s legal mail tracking system where one is in place.”); Rule 3(d), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“If an institution has a system designed for legal mail, the inmate must use that system to receive the benefit of [the prison mailbox] rule.”); Fed.

See also Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1162 (10th Cir. 2005) (“Oklahoma’s two-year statute of limitations applies.”) (citing Abbitt v. Franklin, 731 F.2d 661, 663 (10th Cir. 1984) (en banc)).

See Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[A] pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal will be considered timely if given to prison officials for mailing prior to the filing deadline, regardless of when the court itself receives the documents.”); see also Larson v. Meek, 240 Fed.Appx. 777, 780 (10th Cir. 2007) (unpublished) (combining prison mailbox rule and misdirected filing to establish timely filing). 2.

See Price, 420 F.3d at 1166 (“[Ojnce the timeliness of Price’s complaint became an issue, Price failed to document his use of the legal mail system before the district court reached its decision on the merits.”); Sweets, 625 Fed.Appx. at 363 (before dismissing appeal as untimely, “[w]e alerted Mr. Sweets to the timeliness issue and directed him to explain how we could treat the appeal as timely”); United States v. Spence, 625 Fed.Appx. 871, 874 (10th Cir.2015) (unpublished) …

P. 54(b)); see also Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158 , 1167 n. 9 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[E]very order short of a final decree is subject to reopening at the discretion of the district judge.”) (quotation omitted); Wagoner v. Wagoner, 938 F.2d 1120 , 1122 n. 1 (10th Cir. 1991) (noting that a motion for reconsideration filed prior to final judgment “was nothing more than an interlocutory motion invoking the district court’s general discretionary authority to review and revise inter…

F.R.D. 453, 462 (D.N.M. 2009); see also Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158 , 1167 n.9 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[E]very order short of a final decree is subject to reopening at the discretion of the district judge.”)(internal citations omitted).

See Pedroza v. Lomas Auto Mall, 258 F.R.D. 453, 462 (D.N.M. 2009); see also Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158 , 1167 n.9 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[E]very order short of a final decree is subject to reopening at the discretion of the district judge.”)(internal citations omitted).

Id.; see also Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158 , 1167 n.9 (10th Cir. 2005) (“every order short of a final decree is subject to reopening at the discretion of the district judge.”) (citation omitted); Wagoner v. Wagoner, 938 F.2d 1120 , 1122 n.1 (10th Cir. 1991) (noting that a motion for reconsideration filed prior to final judgment “was nothing more than an interlocutory motion invoking the district court’s general discretionary authority to review and revise interlocutory ru…

See Pedroza v. Lomas Auto Mall, 258 F.R.D. 453, 462 (D.N.M. 2009); see also Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158 , 1167 n.9 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[E]very order short of a final decree is subject to reopening at the discretion of the district judge.”)(internal citations omitted).

P. 59(e), 60(b), and 54(b)). 20 See id. (“[E]very order short of a final decree is subject to reopening at the discretion of the district judge.”) (quoting Moses H.

Schs., 212 F. App’x 760, 765 (10th Cir. 2007) (citing Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158 , 1167 n. 9 (10th 1 Plaintiff Tina Peters has filed a Response opposing the Motion to Stay.

P. 54(b)); see also Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158 , 1167 n. 9 (10th Cir. 2005) (“[E]very order short of a final decree is subject to reopening at the discretion of the district judge.”) (quotation omitted); Wagoner v. Wagoner, 938 F.2d 1120 , 1122 n. 1 (10th Cir. 1991) (noting that a motion for reconsideration filed prior to final judgment “was nothing more than an interlocutory motion invoking the district court’s general discretionary authority to review and revise inter…

P. 59(e), 60(b), and 54(b)). 26 See id. (“[E]very order short of a final decree is subject to reopening at the discretion of the district judge.”) (quoting Moses H.

P. 59(e), 60(b), & 54(b)). 6 See id. (“[E]very order short of a final decree is subject to reopening at the discretion of the district judge.”) (quoting Moses H.

Schs., 212 F. App’x 760, 765 (10th Cir. 2007); see also Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158 , 1167 n. 9 (10th Cir. 1988) (“[E]very order short of a final decree is subject to reopening at the discretion of the district judge.”).

If an appeal is returned for being untimely, “the inmate may make one request to submit a disciplinary appeal out of time by completion of the ‘Request to Submit a Misconduct/Grievance Appeal out of Time.’” Id. at 30. 4 “The prison mailbox rule, as articulated by the Supreme Court in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988), holds that a pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal will be considered timely if given to prison officials for mailing prior to the filing deadline, regard…

Doc. 21, at 2 (citing Ex. 2, at 7-11).6 In his appeal to the ARA, dated February 28, 2024,7 and received by the ARA on March 5, 2025, Petitioner stated that he submitted “a 5 “The prison mailbox rule, as articulated by the Supreme Court in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988), holds that a pro se prisoner's notice of appeal will be considered timely if given to prison officials for mailing prior to the filing deadline, regardless of when the court itself receives the do…

E.g., Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1162 (10th Cir. 2005).

The prisoner mailbox rule states that, when certain conditions are satisfied, an inmate who places a filing “in the prison’s internal mail system will be treated as having ‘filed’ on the date it is given to prison authorities for mailing to the court.” Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1165 (10th Cir. 2005).

Under the prison mailbox rule, a document “will be treated as . . . ‘filed’ . . . on the date it is given to prison authorities for mailing to the court.” Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1165 (10th Cir. 2005).

Utah Oct. 5, 2021) (citing Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1167, n. 9 (10th Cir. 2005)).

App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 87 U.S. 266 , 275 (1988); Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1164 (10th Cir. 2005).

Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1167, n.9 (10th Cir. 2005) (discussing that motions to reconsider filed within ten days of judgment are construed as seeking relief under Rule 59(e)).

Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1162 (10th Cir. 2005).

Monday, Feb. 17th,” Docket No. 88 at 1, on the last page of his objection, Mr. Crawford states that he “mailed and submitted on 18 Feb 25.” Id. at 3 . 3 “[I]f the prison has a legal mail system, then the prisoner must use it as the means of proving compliance with the mailbox rule.” Price, 420 F.3d at 1165 (citation omitted).

In other words, Plaintiff seeks to avail herself of the “mailbox rule,” which deems prison filings timely “if given to prison officials for mailing prior to the filing deadline[.]” Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (10th Cir. 2005).

An inmate who places a habeas petition “in the prison’s internal mail system will be treated as having ‘filed’ [the petition] on the date it is given to prison authorities for mailing to the court.” Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1165 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988)).

Bishop v. Corsentino, 371 F.3d 1203, 1207 (10th Cir. 2004) (footnote omitted). 1"The prison mailbox rule . . . holds that a pro se prisoner's notice of appeal will be considered timely if given to prison officials for mailing prior to the filing deadline, regardless of when the court itself receives the documents." Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (10th Cir. 2005). 2It should be noted that implicit in Plaintiff's timeline is his mistaken belief that he could appeal t…

If a district court “relies on material from outside the pleadings” at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, the court must convert “the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.” Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1167 (10th Cir. 2005); see also Fed.

“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the 1 “An inmate who places a federal civil rights complaint in the prison’s internal mail system will be treated as having ‘filed’ that complaint on the date it is given to prison authorities for mailing to the court.” Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1165 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 5 violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show t…

The Court must “determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to.”3 An objection is “proper” if it is both timely and specific.4 A specific objection “enables the district judge to focus attention on those issues—factual and legal—that are at the heart of the parties’ dispute.”5 In the absence of a proper objection, the district court may review a magistrate judge’s recommendation under any standard it deems appropriate.6 Th…

Under the “prison mailbox rule,” a document is considered filed on “the date it is given to prison authorities for mailing to the court.” Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1165 (10th Cir. 2005).

One way an inmate can establish the date on which they gave the papers to be filed with the court to a prison official is to “submit a declaration [in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 17461 ] or notarized statement setting forth the 1 28 U.S.C. § 1746 provides in pertinent part: Wherever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulation, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or prov…

Under either statute, Plaintiff’s time has run. 40 K.S.A § 60-513(a)(4). 41 Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1162 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Baker v. Bd. of Regents, 991 F.2d 628, 632 (10th Cir. 1993)). 42 Baker, 991 F.2d at 632 (citing Blumberg v. HCA Mgmt.

Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1162 (10th Cir. 2005). “[C]laims arising out of police actions toward a criminal suspect, such as arrest, interrogation, or search and seizure, are presumed to have accrued when the actions actually occur.” Eikenberry v. Seward Cnty., 734 F. App’x 572 , 576 (10th Cir. 2018) (quoting Beck v. City of Muskogee Police Dep’t, 195 F.3d 553, 558 (10th Cir. 1999)).10 While Plaintiffs insist that Judge Neureiter’s timeliness analysis is “incorrect,” s…

Under the “prison mailbox rule,” a document is considered filed on “the date it is given to prison authorities for mailing to the court.” Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1165 (10th Cir. 2005).

“Denials of equal protection by a municipal entity or any other person acting under color of state law are actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .” Id. “‘[S]exual harassment by a state actor can constitute a violation of the equal protection clause.’” Id. (citing Starrett v. Wadley, 876 F.2d 808, 814 (10th Cir. 1989)). see also, Price, 420 F.3d at 1162 (A § 1983 action “accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.”).

Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1167 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing Fed.

Kan. 2016) (§ 1985 and Bivens). 118 Hardin v. Straub, 490 U.S. 536, 539 (1989). 119 McDonough v. Smith, 139 S. Ct. 2149 , 2155 (2019) (quoting Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388 (2007)). 120 K.S.A § 60-513(a)(4). 121 Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1162 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Baker v. Bd. of Regents, 991 F.2d 628, 632 (10th Cir. 1993)). 122 Baker, 991 F.2d at 632 (citing Blumberg v. HCA Mgmt.

Doc. 29 at 1-20. 5 See Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (10th Cir. 2005) (“The prison mailbox rule, as articulated by the Supreme Court in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 , 108 S.Ct. 2379 , 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), holds that a pro se prisoner's notice of appeal will be considered timely if given to prison officials for mailing prior to the filing deadline, regardless of when the court itself receives the documents.”) (also citing Fed.

Plaintiff asserts he placed his complaint in the jail’s legal mail system November 21, 2022 (Dkt. 1 at 8),1 more than three weeks after his deadline had passed. “[W]hen the dates given in the complaint make clear that the right sued upon has been 1 “An inmate who places a federal civil rights complaint in the prison’s internal mail system will be treated as having ‘filed’ that complaint on the date it is given to prison authorities for mailing to the court.” Price v. Philpot…

He claims it took numerous attempts over more than three months for him to receive his medical records, so his claim accrued on the date he received the reports. 1 “An inmate who places a federal civil rights complaint in the prison’s internal mail system will be treated as having ‘filed’ that complaint on the date it is given to prison authorities for mailing to the court.” Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1165 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (19…

Pursuant to Rule 4(c)(1)(A)(i), we have observed that an inmate can show timely filing where “a legal system is not available, . . . by timely use of the prison’s regular mail system in combination with a notarized statement or a declaration under penalty of perjury of the date on which the documents were given to prison authorities and attesting that postage was prepaid.” Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1166 (10th Cir. 2005).

The general rule 2 Appellate Case: 22-3064 Document: 010110780300 Date Filed: 12/12/2022 Page: 3 is that accrual occurs “when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.” Herrera v. City of Espanola, 32 F.4th 980, 990 (10th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[I]t is not necessary that a claimant know all of the evidence ultimately relied on for the cause of action to accrue.” Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1162 (10…

Under this rule, “an inmate who places a federal [court filing] in the prison’s internal mail system will be treated as having ‘filed’ that [document] on the date it is given to prison authorities for mailing to the court.” Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1165 (10th Cir. 2005).

Second, when an “inmate does not have access to a legal mail system—or if the existing legal mail system is inadequate to satisfy the mailbox rule”—then the inmate must prove adherence to the rule through “a declaration [in compliance with 28 U.S.C. §1746 ] or notarized statement setting forth the notice [of appeal]’s date of deposit with prison officials and attest[ing] that first- 9 Appellate Case: 20-1418 Document: 010110718991 Date Filed: 08/02/2022 Page: 10 class postag…