Young v. Davis

275 Citing cases

  1. Wright v. Operator

    Case No. CIV-18-217-G (W.D. Okla. Feb. 4, 2019)

    Absent exceptional circumstances, the application of equitable tolling to Plaintiff's federal civil rights claims is governed by Oklahoma law. See Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2009); Breedlove v. Costner, 405 F. App'x 338, 342 (10th Cir. 2010); see also Miller v. Ford, No. CIV-14-1124-R, 2016 WL 4761570, at *7 & n.8 (W.D. Okla. June 30, 2016) (R. & R.), adopted, 2016 WL 4742323 (W.D Okla. Sept. 12, 2016), and aff'd, 697 F. App'x 611 (10th Cir. 2017). Under Oklahoma law, equitable tolling is appropriate when: (1) there is a legal disability because the plaintiff's competency is impaired or the plaintiff has not yet reached the age of majority; or (2) when defendants engage in false, fraudulent or misleading conduct calculated to lull plaintiffs into sitting on their rights.

  2. Gilmore v. Neph

    No. 23-3134 (10th Cir. Jan. 4, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Background We take the well-pleaded facts contained in the amended complaint as true and in the light most favorable to Mr. Gilmore. Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254, 1256 (10th Cir. 2009). Mr. Gilmore currently resides at Larned State Hospital, a psychiatric facility.

  3. Pemberton v. Patton

    No. 15-6089 (10th Cir. Jan. 25, 2016)   Cited 2 times

    Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1096 (10th Cir. 2009). We accept the well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to Mr. Pemberton. Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254, 1256 (10th Cir. 2009). But we are not bound to accept legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.

  4. Hopkins v. Crow

    No. CIV-20-967-R (W.D. Okla. Jan. 29, 2021)

    "[I]n Alexander, [the Tenth Circuit explained that] the Oklahoma discovery rule tolls the statute of limitations until an injured party knows of, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of or discovered the injury...". Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2009) (emphasis in original) (citing 382 F.3d at 1217 (internal quotation marks omitted)). The Court has also noted that "exceptional circumstances may justify tolling a statute of limitations."

  5. Morgan v. Addison

    Case No. CIV-14-1416-D (W.D. Okla. May. 4, 2015)

    [Finally,] in the appropriate case, exceptional circumstances may justify tolling a statute of limitations.Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2009) (quotations, alterations, and citations omitted). Oklahoma's exceptions to a statute of limitations "are strictly construed and are not enlarged on consideration of apparent hardship or inconvenience."

  6. Green v. Smith

    Case No. CIV-13-601-C (W.D. Okla. Aug. 26, 2014)

    See Johnson v. Johnson Cnty. Comm'n Bd., 925 F.2d 1299, 1301 (10th Cir. 1991) ("Claims arising out of police actions toward a criminal suspect . . . are presumed to have accrued when the actions actually occur."). Plaintiff alleges nothing that would implicate equitable tolling. Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254, 1258 (10th Cir. 2009) ("There is nothing about these factual circumstances that would trigger tolling under Oklahoma law - no legal disability, no fraudulent concealment, and no exceptional circumstances."). 2.

  7. Thomas v. Knutson

    No. 23-7067 (10th Cir. May. 9, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    We review de novo a district court's dismissal of a complaint under 28 U.S.C. ยงยง 1915A(b)(1) and 1915(e)(2)(B). See Vasquez Arroyo v. Starks, 589 F.3d 1091, 1094 (10th Cir. 2009); Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254, 1256 (10th Cir. 2009). Where, as here, the district court dismisses the complaint for failure to state a claim, "[w]e apply the same standard of review . . . that we employ for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss."

  8. Gilmore v. Vital Core, LLC

    No. 23-3135 (10th Cir. Jan. 24, 2024)

    We take the well-pleaded facts contained in the complaint as true and in the light most favorable to Mr. Gilmore. Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254, 1256 (10th Cir. 2009).

  9. Leek v. Androski

    No. 21-3165 (10th Cir. Apr. 18, 2022)   Cited 6 times
    Explaining that the court may refer to documents referenced in the complaint if they are central to the plaintiff's claims and may take judicial notice of court records in underlying judicial proceedings

    Because this case comes to us from the dismissal of Leek's second amended complaint, we take these facts from that complaint. See Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254, 1256 (10th Cir. 2009) (noting that in appeal from dismissal, we accept allegations in complaint as true). We also take judicial notice of court filings in Leek's separate but related district-court case.

  10. Wooten v. Hayden

    No. 21-3065 (10th Cir. Dec. 2, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    . See Young v. Davis, 554 F.3d 1254, 1256 (10th Cir. 2009). "A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain 'a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Ghailani v. Sessions, 859 F.3d 1295, 1303 (10th Cir. 2017)