Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Alan F. Stephan v. Earl B. Dowdle

Alan F. Stephan v. Earl B. Dowdle, 733 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1984)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1984-05-14
Topic
litigation

How later courts describe this case

  • mentioning Tomauio and state-court interpretation of state law, overrules Circuit precedent and holds Arizona’s tolling provision applies to inmates' actions pursuant to S 1983

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Alan F. Stephan v. Earl B. Dowdle. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
16 opinions
STEPHAN v. DOWDLE,733 F.2d 642(9th Cir. 1984)
ALAN F. STEPHAN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. EARL B. DOWDLE, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 83-1946.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 30, 1984.fn*
Decided May 14, 1984.
Alan F. Stephan, pro se.

Robert F. Ellig, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Ariz., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.
Before SCHROEDER, FERGUSON, and NELSON, Circuit Judges.
SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge:
[1] Alan F. Stephan, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his federal civil rights action. The district court found that Stephan's claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and that Stephan's confinement in prison did not toll the statute under Arizona's tolling provision, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 12-502.

[2] The district court relied onMajor v. Arizona State Prison,642 F.2d 311(9th Cir. 1981), where this court held that § 12-502 did not toll the statute of limitations for prisoners. The Arizona Court of Appeals, however, inSmith v. MacDougall,676 P.2d 656(Ariz. App. 1983), reached the opposite conclusion and held that under § 12-502, confinement in prison tolls the applicable statute of limitations. The Arizona Supreme Court has declined to review that decision. Because federal courts must look to state statutes of limitations and tolling provisions for actions brought under § 1983,see Board of Regents v. Tomanio,446 U.S. 478, 483-85, 100 S.Ct. 1790, 1794-95, 64 L.Ed.2d 440 (1980), and are bound by a state court's construction of the laws of that state,see Gentry v. MacDougall,685 F.2d 322, 323 (9th Cir. 1982), the holding inMajoron the applicability of Arizona's tolling provision to prisoners is no longer binding on this court and must be overruled.

[3] Reversed.
  1. The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without argument pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 9th Cir.R. 3(a) and Fed.R.App.P. 34(b). ↩