Unpublished Disposition, 922 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1990)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 922 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1990)

Robert Carl EVENSTAD, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, and one unknownOfficer John Doe, in his official capacity andindividual capacity, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 89-16144.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 14, 1990.* Decided Jan. 8, 1991.

Before ALDISERT** , KOZINSKI and THOMAS G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM*** 

Evenstad's complaint was not timely unless placed in the possession of the court clerk by February 15, 1990. Cintron v. Union Pacific, 813 F.2d 917, 920 (9th Cir. 1987). Evenstad's complaint arrived at the clerk's office with a cover letter that was stamped "received" on February 16, 1990, one day late. C.R. 2, at 5.

Evenstad argues that his complaint should have been deemed filed when placed in the U.S. mail under the doctrine of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988). Even if the Houston exception were available to toll the statute of limitations for a section 1983 complaint, the exception only applies if the complaint is delivered to prison authorities for mailing; it does not apply when a prisoner places the notice in a regular mailbox. Miller v. Sumner, No. 88-1798, slip op. 14817, 14821-22 (9th Cir. Dec. 4, 1990). Evenstad placed his complaint in a regular U.S. mailbox at Leavenworth. Brief of Appellant at 1. Evenstad has shown no circumstances that would justify equitable tolling in his case.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); Circuit Rule 34-4

 **

The Honorable Ruggero J. Aldisert, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation

 ***

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

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.