Barnes v. United States, No. 13-5014 (10th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseIn August 2007, a federal grand jury returned a two-count indictment against Larry Barnes, charging him with crimes relating to the possession and distribution of methamphetamine. After a three-day trial, a jury convicted Barnes on both counts, and he was sentenced to sixty-six months’ incarceration on each count, to run concurrently, as well as a lengthy period of supervised release. While Barnes’s direct appeal was pending, the government acquired evidence indicating that material testimony offered at trial by a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATF) special agent, an officer of the Tulsa Police Department, and a confidential informant had been fabricated. The government responded to the newly acquired evidence by asking the court to vacate Barnes’s conviction, to dismiss the indictment against him, and to release him from incarceration. In 2009, the district court entered an order directing the Bureau of Prisons to immediately release Mr. Barnes. Following his release, Barnes and his wife, Linda filed administrative tort claims with the BATF. About a year later, in 2011, the Barneses filed a civil lawsuit against the BATF in Oklahoma state court asserting various claims sounding in tort. The Barneses appealed the dismissal of their Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) suit. The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), based on its finding that the Barneses’ claims were time-barred under the six-month statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. 2401(b). The Barneses argued on appeal that the district court misinterpreted the statute of limitations and further erred by failing to afford the Barneses the benefit of the doctrines of relation back, equitable tolling, and equitable estoppel. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.