UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Filed 6/4/96
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
JIM R. HOUSLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 95-7088
LARRY BURROWS, Sheriff of Washita (D.C. No. CV-94-298)
County; ALFRED MILLER, County (E.D. Okla.)
Commissioner; GENE ETRIS, Washita
County Commissioner; FRANK HOHKE,
Washita County Commissioner; BOBBY
BOONE, Warden of MACC,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before ANDERSON, LOGAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law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 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted
without oral argument.
Plaintiff Jim R. Housley, appearing pro se, appeals the dismissal of his claims brought
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff argues that, contrary to the holding of the district court,
his claims are not barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We have reviewed the
judgment of the district court de novo, see Trustees of Wyo. Laborers Health & Welfare Plan
v. Morgen & Oswood Constr. Co., 850 F.2d 613, 617 (10th Cir. 1988), and we reverse.
Plaintiff’s complaint stated that he was arrested on September 7, 1991, and was held
in the Washita County Oklahoma Jail for four and one-half months. He alleged that, during
his confinement, he was deprived of the use of the law library and prevented from exercising
outside his cell.1 Based on a fair reading of the complaint, the district court calculated that
plaintiff was in the Washita County Jail for a continuous four and one-half month period
beginning on September 7, 1991, and was therefore released on or around January 21, 1992.
On this reading, plaintiff’s complaint, filed May 18, 1994, was barred by Oklahoma’s two-
year statute of limitations. See Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1522 (10th Cir. 1988).
1
In addition to his complaints against the authorities of the Washita County Jail,
plaintiff also complained that the warden for the Mack Alford Correctional Center, where
he was later transferred, similarly deprived him of library access. The district court, finding
that this allegation lacked an arguable basis either in fact or in law, dismissed that portion of
plaintiff’s complaint under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). Plaintiff does not appeal
this portion of the district court’s judgment.
2
The district court may dismiss a complaint if, after examining only the complaint and
taking all allegations contained therein as true, it cannot find any set of facts as pleaded upon
which relief may be granted. Jackson v. Integra Inc., 952 F.2d 1260, 1261 (10th Cir. 1991).
Under this standard, the district court was technically correct to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, however, and is entitled to a liberal construction of his
pleadings. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-521 (1972). This means that
if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which
the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so despite the plaintiff’s failure to cite
proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax
and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading requirements. At
the same time, we do not believe it is the proper function of the district court
to assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant.
Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). A court “will not supply additional
facts, [or] construct a legal theory for plaintiff that assumes facts that have not been pleaded.”
Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 1188, 1197 (10th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1059 (1990).
Here, in addition to the allegations in the complaint, plaintiff also filed an “Objection
to [Defendants’] Motion to Dismiss and Brief,” I. R. tab 9, in which he more specifically
alleges his exact dates of confinement. There he states that he was in the Washita County
Jail from September 7 through December 3, 1991, was transferred to the Custer County Jail
for trial, and then reincarcerated in the Washita County Jail from May 18 through July 15,
1992. Thus, contrary to the impression given in his complaint, plaintiff’s stay in the Washita
County Jail was not a continuous one. While claims arising from plaintiff’s initial
3
incarceration in the Washita County Jail still run afoul of the statute of limitations, claims
stemming from his second stay there are within the two-year period and are not barred.
We view plaintiff’s objection as an attempt to amend his complaint -- a procedure
recommended by Hall in cases in which “the plaintiff[’s] factual allegations are close to
stating a claim but are missing some important element that may not have occurred to him.”
Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110. As such, we hold that the district court should have considered the
clarification contained in plaintiff’s objection when making its decision.
We thus reverse the district court’s judgment that plaintiff’s claims are time-barred.
We remand for further proceedings in accordance with this order and judgment and in light
of this court’s holdings in Housley v. Dodson, 41 F.3d 597 (10th Cir. 1994), and Beville v.
Ednie, 74 F.3d 210 (10th Cir. 1996).2
REVERSED.
Entered for the Court
James K. Logan
Circuit Judge
2
We note that this case may be affected by the recently enacted Prison Litigation
Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321, and commend resolution of any issues
raised by that Act to the consideration of the district court on remand.
4