Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County The Honorable Michael Davis, Judge
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hill, Justice.
Before KITE, C.J., HILL, VOIGT, BURKE, JJ., and GOLDEN, J., Retired.
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third. Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.
[¶1] In 2011, Steven DeLoge filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for damages arising out of property confiscated from his home in 1999 when he was arrested and convicted on six counts of sexual assault. The district court dismissed Mr. DeLoge's complaint as time barred, and in his fifth appearance before this Court, Mr. DeLoge appeals. We affirm.
[¶2] Mr. DeLoge appears pro se and presents the following issues on appeal:
Issue I: Whether the district court correctly dismissed the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint finding the claims barred by statute of limitations and failure to file governmental claims?
Issue II: Whether the district court opinion and order on motions to dismiss the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint denied [DeLoge] full and fair adjudication based on the merits of the case?
Issue III: Whether the Supreme Court should consider barring [DeLoge] from further litigation relating to this matter.
[¶3] Pursuant to multiple search warrants, the Cheyenne Police Department seized property from Mr. DeLoge's residence on November 5, 1999 and November 7, 1999. Subsequent to that search, Mr. DeLoge was convicted on six counts of second degree sexual assault and sentenced to six consecutive life sentences, which conviction and sentence was affirmed in Mr. DeLoge's first appeal to this Court. DeLoge v. State, 2002 WY 155, 55 P.3d 1233 (Wyo. 2002) (DeLoge I).
[¶4] On October 6, 2003, Mr. DeLoge filed a motion for preservation and return of seized property in district court. DeLoge v. State, 2005 WY 152, ¶ 6, 123 P.3d 573, 575 (Wyo. 2005) (DeLoge II). When the district court had not ruled on that motion within ninety days, Mr. DeLoge appealed, relying on the "deemed denied" provision of W.R.C.P. 6(c)(2). Id. This Court ruled that the "deemed denied" rule did not apply, and we remanded to the district court for a decision on the property motion. Id. ¶¶ 12, 13, 123 P.3d at 578.
[¶5] On remand, Mr. DeLoge requested a hearing on his property motion, moved the district court to appoint counsel, and moved to disqualify the judge. DeLoge v. State, 2007 WY 71, ¶ 5, 156 P.3d 1004, 1007 (Wyo. 2007) (DeLoge III). During a hearing on the property motion, the State represented that "it no longer had possession of Mr. DeLoge's property because it had been transferred to authorities in Mississippi and Washington in furtherance of ongoing missing person investigations." Id. ¶ 7, 156 P.3d at 1007.*fn1 The district court thereafter issued an order denying Mr. DeLoge's motions and directing that the property be returned to the court for further proceedings when the agencies in Mississippi and Washington had completed their investigations and the items were no longer of evidentiary value to them. Id. ¶¶ 6-7, 156 P.3d at 1007. This Court affirmed the orders denying appointment of counsel and disqualification of the judge, but we held that the court erred in not requiring the State to submit evidence regarding the government's continued interest in retention of the property and remanded for additional proceedings. Id. ¶ 27, 156 P.3d at 1012.
[¶6] On remand, the district court held a hearing during which the State presented evidence that "Wyoming authorities had possession of some of Mr. DeLoge's property," but that the remaining property had been transferred to Mississippi authorities in 2000. DeLoge v. State, 2010 WY 60, ¶¶ 11-12, 231 P.3d 862, 864 (Wyo. 2010) (DeLoge IV). The State arranged for the return of property in its possession to Mr. DeLoge, and the district court, because it lacked jurisdiction over property held in another state, directed the district attorney to request an itemization from Mississippi authorities. Id. The district attorney requested the itemization, but when the Mississippi authorities did not respond, the district attorney moved to close the case as no further remedy was available to DeLoge. Id. In March 2009, the district court granted the motion, and Mr. DeLoge then requested that the State be ordered to compensate him for the loss of his property, which request the court denied. Id., ¶ ...