668 Fed.Appx. 216 (9th Cir. 2016), 15-15039, Cepero v. Gillespie
|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|
Submitted: July 26, 2016 [**]
NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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.
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 readingFREE SIGN UP