Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Mark Cooper v. City of Ashland Brian Almquist Vic Lively Mel Clements John Does I-V

871 F.2d 104

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1989-05-11
Topic
employee-benefits-and-executive-compensation

How later courts describe this case

  • “Oregon’s twoyear statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”
  • “Oregon’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”
  • “When papers are mailed to the 22 clerk’s office, filing is complete when the papers are received by the clerk.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Mark Cooper v. City of Ashland Brian Almquist Vic Lively Mel Clements John Does I-V. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
56 opinions
COOPER v. CITY OF ASHLAND,871 F.2d 104(9th Cir. 1989)
MARK COOPER, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CITY OF ASHLAND; BRIAN ALMQUIST; VIC
LIVELY; MEL CLEMENTS; JOHN DOES I-V, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 87-4187.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 29, 1988.fn*
Decided April 3, 1989.
As Amended May 11, 1989.
Page 105
Mark Cooper, Santa Rosa, Cal., in pro se.

Allan M. Muir and James P. Martin, Schwabe, Williamson Wyatt, Portland, Or., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
Before MERRILL, REINHARDT and HALL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] Cooper appeals pro se the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in this action under42 U.S.C. § 1983. We reverse.

[2] Cooper's complaint alleged that he had been arrested in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment constitutional rights "on or about October 11, 1984." Cooper mailed the complaint on October 9, 1986, return receipt requested. The return receipt was signed by an employee in the clerk's office and dated October 13, 1986. The complaint itself was stamped "received" on October 15, 1986, and stamped "filed" on October 21, 1986. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the respondents on the ground that the complaint was barred by the statute of limitations.

[3] Oregon's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to actions under42 U.S.C. § 1983.SeeOr. Rev.Stat. § 12.110(1);Owens v. Okure,___ U.S. ___, 109 S.Ct. 573, 102 L.Ed. 2d 594 (1989);Wilson v. Garcia,471 U.S. 261, 280, 105 S.Ct. 1938, 1949, 85 L.Ed.2d 254 (1985);Davis v.Harvey,789 F.2d 1332, 1333 (9th Cir. 1986). The last day for timely filing of Cooper's complaint would ordinarily have been October 11, 1986, but that date was a Saturday. The following Monday, October 13, 1986, was Columbus Day, a legal holiday. The last day for timely filing of Cooper's complaint was therefore Tuesday, October 14, 1986.SeeFed.R.Civ.P. 6(a). When papers are mailed to the clerk's office, filing is complete when the papers are received by the clerk. 2 J. Moore,Moore's FederalPractice¶ 5.11 (2d ed. 1988); 4A C. Wright A. Miller,Federal Practice and Procedure§ 1153 (2d ed. 1987);see alsoTorras Herreria y Construcciones, S.A. v. M/V Timur Star,803 F.2d 215, 216 (6th Cir. 1986). Because the clerk's office received the complaint on October 13, 1986, before the statute of limitations expired, the complaint was timely filed.

[4] REVERSED and REMANDED.
  1. The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4 and Fed.R.App.P. 34(a). ↩