Unpublished Disposition, 894 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988)
Annotate this CaseAlfred L. CAMERON; Melvin T. Wilcox; Fred G. Morgan,Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.Daniel J. CAPODANNO; Jack L. Weeks; Victor M. Reyes;Helen Corrothers, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 89-35237, 89-35293.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 1990.* Decided Jan. 23, 1990.
Before EUGENE A. WRIGHT, TANG and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
We affirm the district court's dismissal of Cameron's and Wilcox's Bivens suit because we conclude that their suit was filed after the statute of limitations had run.1 The appropriate statute of limitations for a constitutional tort is the most analogous statute of limitations. See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 267-68 (1985). Here, the two most analogous statutes of limitation are the Oregon statute of limitations for personal injury and the federal tort statute of limitations in the Federal Tort Claims Act. Both the Oregon limitation, see Oregon Revised Statute Sec. 12.110(1), and the Federal Tort Claim Act limitation, see 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), run two years. Under either limitation, Cameron's and Wilcox's claims would not be timely. The last action complained of took place in 1985; however, the suit was not filed until February 2, 1988.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously agrees that this case is appropriate for submission without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
We dismiss Fred Morgan's appeal because he did not sign the notice of appeal. See Carter v. Comissioner, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir. 1986)
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
