Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 28 views

    Dale Frame v. Michael D. Hood A.F. Beeler T.R. Kindt Kelly Hudson, Hobbycraft Fci, El Reno Unknown Price, Hobbycraft Fci, El Reno, 9 F.3d 116, 10th Cir. (1993)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a 3-page court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The pro se plaintiff, Dale Frame, appealed the district court's dismissal of his complaint alleging deprivation of property without being given an opportunity to amend his complaint or respond fully to the summary judgment motion. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that even liberally construing the complaint, the only valid claim was under the Federal Tort Claims Act, but this was time-barred by the statute of limitations, so amendment would be futile.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Dale Frame v. Michael D. Hood A.F. Beeler T.R. Kindt Kelly Hudson, Hobbycraft Fci, El Reno Unknown Price, Hobbycraft Fci, El Reno, 9 F.3d 116, 10th Cir. (1993)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    28 views2 pages
    This document is a 3-page court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The pro se plaintiff, Dale Frame, appealed the district court's dismissal of his complaint alleging deprivation of property without being given an opportunity to amend his complaint or respond fully to the summary judgment motion. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that even liberally construing the complaint, the only valid claim was under the Federal Tort Claims Act, but this was time-barred by the statute of limitations, so amendment would be futile.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1993-10-19 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 9 F.3d 116 Docket: 93-6140

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a 3-page court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The pro se plaintiff, Dale Frame, appealed the district court's dismissal of his complaint alleging deprivation of property without being given an opportunity to amend his complaint or respond fully to the summary judgment motion. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that even liberally construing the complaint, the only valid claim was under the Federal Tort Claims Act, but this was time-barred by the statute of limitations, so amendment would be futile.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    28 views2 pages

    Dale Frame v. Michael D. Hood A.F. Beeler T.R. Kindt Kelly Hudson, Hobbycraft Fci, El Reno Unknown Price, Hobbycraft Fci, El Reno, 9 F.3d 116, 10th Cir. (1993)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a 3-page court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The pro se plaintiff, Dale Frame, appealed the district court's dismissal of his complaint alleging deprivation of property without being given an opportunity to amend his complaint or respond fully to the summary judgment motion. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that even liberally construing the complaint, the only valid claim was under the Federal Tort Claims Act, but this was time-barred by the statute of limitations, so amendment would be futile.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    9 F.

    3d 116
    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.

    Dale FRAME, Plaintiff-Appellant,


    v.
    Michael D. HOOD; A.F. Beeler; T.R. Kindt; Kelly Hudson,
    Hobbycraft FCI, El Reno; Unknown Price,
    Hobbycraft FCI, El Reno, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 93-6140.

    United States Court of Appeals,


    Tenth Circuit.
    Oct. 19, 1993.

    Before TACHA, BALDOCK and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

    ORDER AND JUDGMENT1


    1

    After examining the briefs and 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); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is
    therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

    This is an appeal from an order of the district court granting defendant's motion
    to dismiss, which was converted by the district court to a motion for summary
    judgment. The pro se appellant, Dale Frame, appeals on the grounds that the
    district court erred in granting summary judgment because appellant was
    allegedly deprived of property and not given an opportunity to amend
    sufficiently his complaint to fully respond to the motion for summary
    judgment. Although we are concerned that pro se petitioners receive an
    adequate opportunity to state their allegations in a form cognizable in federal

    court, the district court was very careful to apply the correct standards to the
    complaint in this case. Both the magistrate judge and the district court
    construed very liberally the complaint that was filed by the plaintiff, as they
    were required to do under the liberal construction rules governing pro se
    complaints. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Miller v. Glanz, 948 F.2d
    1562, 1565 (10th Cir.1991) (citations omitted). Both the magistrate judge and
    the district court explored all of the possible causes of action that appellant
    could have been asserting based on the deprivation of property that he alleges
    occurred. We agree with the magistrate judge and the district court that even
    under the most liberal construction of this complaint the only arguably valid
    basis for plaintiff's complaint against the named defendants is under the Federal
    Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2671-2680. However, any claims thereunder are
    barred by the statute of limitations. As a result, amendment of the complaint
    would be futile. Further, appointment of counsel would be futile because the
    claims are time barred. We therefore AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment
    in favor of appellees.

    This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or
    used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing
    the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir.
    R. 36.3

    You might also like