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

Ninth Circuit

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

871 F.2d 104

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 11, 1989

Docket87-4187

StatusPublished

Cited by55 cases

This text of 871 F.2d 104 (Mark Cooper v. City of Ashland Brian Almquist Vic Lively Mel Clements John Does I-V) 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

Mark Cooper v. City of Ashland Brian Almquist Vic Lively Mel Clements John Does I-V, 871 F.2d 104 (9th Cir. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Cooper appeals pro se the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We reverse.

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.

Oregon’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Or. 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. See Fed.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 Federal Practice ¶ 5.11 (2d ed. 1988); 4A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1153 (2d ed. 1987); see also Torras 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.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

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

PER CURIAM:

Cooper appeals pro se the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. We reverse.

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.

Oregon’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Or. 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. See Fed.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 Federal Practice ¶ 5.11 (2d ed. 1988); 4A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1153 (2d ed. 1987); see also Torras 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.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

871 F.2d 104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-cooper-v-city-of-ashland-brian-almquist-vic-lively-mel-clements-john-ca9-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack