668 Fed.Appx. 216 (9th Cir. 2016), 15-15039, Cepero v. Gillespie

Docket Nº:15-15039
Citation:668 Fed.Appx. 216
Party Name:BILLY CEPERO, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DOUGLAS GILLESPIE; et al., Defendants - Appellees
Attorney:BILLY CEPERO, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Indian Springs, NV. For DOUGLAS GILLESPIE, BILL CASSELL, D. FLYNN, Lieutenant, C. LEVEQUE, Sergeant, R. HARD, Detective, G. THEOBALD, Detective, T. CORD, Detective, T. FALLER, Detective, L. FERRON, Detective, T. RADKE, Detective, R. NESLUND, Detective,...
Judge Panel:Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:August 05, 2016
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 216

668 Fed.Appx. 216 (9th Cir. 2016)

BILLY CEPERO, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DOUGLAS GILLESPIE; et al., Defendants - Appellees

No. 15-15039

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

August 5, 2016

Submitted: July 26, 2016 [**]

Editorial Note:

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01421-JAD-GWF. Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding.

BILLY CEPERO, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Indian Springs, NV.

For DOUGLAS GILLESPIE, BILL CASSELL, D. FLYNN, Lieutenant, C. LEVEQUE, Sergeant, R. HARD, Detective, G. THEOBALD, Detective, T. CORD, Detective, T. FALLER, Detective, L. FERRON, Detective, T. RADKE, Detective, R. NESLUND, Detective, C. LILIENTHAL, Detective, S. DEVORE, Detective, C. NERI, Detective, S. THOMAS, Detective, R. KEGLEY, Detective, T. AIKEN, Detective, E. MORGAN, Detective, J. BONKAVICH, Officer, M. FOWLER, W. MARX, Defendants - Appellees: Craig R. Anderson, Esquire, Director, Micah S. Echols, Esquire, Attorney, MARQUIS & AURBACH, Las Vegas, NV.

Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Page 217

MEMORANDUM [*]

Nevada state prisoner Billy Cepero appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of an arrest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We reverse and remand.

The district court concluded that Cepero's complaint was not timely filed. However, the record reflects that Cepero constructively filed a handwritten complaint before the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations period. See Loya v. Desert Sands Unified Sch. Dist., 721 F.2d 279, 281 (9th Cir. 1983) (complaint which arrives in the custody of the court clerk within the statutory period but fails to conform with local rules is nevertheless deemed filed for statute of limitations purposes); see also Ordonez v. Johnson, 254 F.3d...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP