DOPP v. KIRKENDALL, 2021 OK 52

Plaintiff Richard Dopp, an inmate, filed a civil suit in Rogers County in 2012 and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis; the Oklahoma Supreme Court ordered the clerk to file his papers despite an earlier denial.
The case proceeded for years without Dopp having prepaid required filing fees; defendants later moved to dismiss under 57 O.S. § 566.2 (prisoner on Registry must prepay fees).
On February 3, 2017 the trial court dismissed Dopp’s 2012 case without prejudice for failure to pay fees; Dopp timely filed a motion to reconsider and appealed when that motion was denied.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ordered Dopp to pay a $200 appellate deposit; he failed to do so and the Court dismissed his appeal on March 28, 2018.
Dopp refiled the suit (having paid fees) on August 9, 2018; the trial court dismissed it as untimely under the one-year savings statute, 12 O.S. § 100, concluding his post-dismissal filings were void ab initio.
The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed; the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated COCA, and held Dopp’s post-dismissal filings were not automatically void and the §100 one-year period began the day after his appeal became final.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether motions/appeals filed after dismissal under 57 O.S. § 566.2 are void ab initio and thus do not toll §100	Dopp: his timely motion to reconsider and appeal were proper and tolled finality; §566.2 does not bar judicial review	Defs: §566.2 prohibits the prisoner from proceeding after dismissal, so post-dismissal filings are void and cannot toll §100	Court: §566.2’s “may not proceed” is permissive; filings are not automatically void; inmate may seek judicial review; post-dismissal filings were valid for tolling purposes
When does the §100 one-year refiling period begin when dismissal is appealed?	Dopp: §100 begins after the appeal process is final (day after appeal finality)	Defs: §100 began on date of trial-court dismissal because post-dismissal filings were void	Court: follows Cole and Grider — if appealed, the one-year period begins the day after the appeal is final; Dopp’s appeal became final March 28, 2018, so his August 9, 2018 refiling was timely

Cole v. Josey, 457 P.3d 1007 (Okla. 2019) (one-year §100 period begins day after dismissal or, if appealed, day after appeal is final)
Grider v. USX Corp., 847 P.2d 779 (Okla. 1993) (operative date for §100 is date when appeal process is final)
Cotner v. Golden, 136 P.3d 630 (Okla. 2006) (clerk must preserve inmate filings to create a record so a final determination of in forma pauperis status is subject to appellate review)
Twashakarris, Inc. v. I.N.S., 890 F.2d 236 (10th Cir. 1989) (an action continues through a timely or validly filed appeal; only valid tolling motions/appeals extend the action for §100 purposes)
Grimes v. City of Oklahoma City, 49 P.3d 719 (Okla. 2002) (statutory interpretation: "may" is permissive, not mandatory)