Jason Giddings v. Greyhound Bus Lines Inc

Ninth Circuit

Jason Giddings v. Greyhound Bus Lines Inc

609 F. App'x 457

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 2, 2015

Docket13-35807

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 609 F. App'x 457 (Jason Giddings v. Greyhound Bus Lines Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jason Giddings v. Greyhound Bus Lines Inc, 609 F. App'x 457 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jason Giddings appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action alleging claims arising out of an incident with a Greyhound bus driver. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. O’Day v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co., 79 F.3d 756, 761 (9th Cir.1996). We reverse and remand.

The district court granted summary judgment because it concluded that Gid-dings did not meet his burden of showing he was disabled at the time of the incident, and thus he was not entitled to statutory tolling and his action was time-barred. However, the record shows that Giddings was previously diagnosed with a serious mental illness and lacked awareness of his actions when not taking medication, that he had a current prescription to treat that illness as of the date of the incident, and that he acted erratically during the incident, giving rise to an inference that he was not taking his medication. Therefore, the record shows a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Giddings suffered sufficiently from a disability at the time of the incident to warrant tolling. See Wash. Rev.Code § 4.16.190; Wash. Rev.Code § 11.88.010; Rivas v. Overlake Hosp. Med. Ctr., 164 Wash.2d 261, 189 P.3d 753, 756 (2008) (explaining requirements for statutory tolling based on disability under Washington law); see also O’Day, 79 F.3d at 761 (when reviewing a grant of summary judgment, this court must “entertain every reasonable inference in favor of the non-moving party.”). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

We do not consider facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir.1990) (“[Fjacts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal”).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Jason Giddings appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his diversity action alleging claims arising out of an incident with a Greyhound bus driver. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. O’Day v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co., 79 F.3d 756, 761 (9th Cir.1996). We reverse and remand.

The district court granted summary judgment because it concluded that Gid-dings did not meet his burden of showing he was disabled at the time of the incident, and thus he was not entitled to statutory tolling and his action was time-barred. However, the record shows that Giddings was previously diagnosed with a serious mental illness and lacked awareness of his actions when not taking medication, that he had a current prescription to treat that illness as of the date of the incident, and that he acted erratically during the incident, giving rise to an inference that he was not taking his medication. Therefore, the record shows a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Giddings suffered sufficiently from a disability at the time of the incident to warrant tolling. See Wash. Rev.Code § 4.16.190; Wash. Rev.Code § 11.88.010; Rivas v. Overlake Hosp. Med. Ctr., 164 Wash.2d 261, 189 P.3d 753, 756 (2008) (explaining requirements for statutory tolling based on disability under Washington law); see also O’Day, 79 F.3d at 761 (when reviewing a grant of summary judgment, this court must “entertain every reasonable inference in favor of the non-moving party.”). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

We do not consider facts not presented to the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir.1990) (“[Fjacts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal”).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

609 F. App'x 457, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jason-giddings-v-greyhound-bus-lines-inc-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack