Unpublished Disposition, 927 F.2d 610 (9th Cir. 1988)

 Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 927 F.2d 610 (9th Cir. 1988) Armando MIGUELEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Robert Ter HORST, individual/official capacity as facultyand committee members of Department of Spanish andPortuguese for yrs. 1984-1986 for U of A, University of St.of AZ, Dana Nelson, Elinana S. Rivero, John J. Gilabert,John M. Martin, Nils Hasselmo, individual/official capacityas Provost of U of A, Henry Koffler, individual/officialcapacity as President of U of A, Defendants-Appellees

No. 89-16102.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, No. CV-88-0388-ACM; Alfredo C. Marquez, District Judge, Presiding.

D. Ariz.

AFFIRMED.

Before HUG, BEEZER and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM** 

Appellant Armando Miguelez (Miguelez) appeals the district court's order dismissing his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). Dismissal of Miguelez' suit was based on a finding by the district court that Miguelez' complaint was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

Miguelez filed his complaint on June 2, 1988. On June 5, 1985, he was informed by letter that he would not receive tenure, but would receive only a one-year terminal contract. In August 1985, he received the one-year terminal contract, which confirmed the denial of tenure. The district court ruled that the applicable statute of limitations is two years, which Miguelez does not contest. Thus, whether we consider the time for the running of the statute to be the initial notification or the confirmation of that notification by the receipt of the one-year contract, either was not within the two-year statutory limitation period.

Miguelez contends that other acts of discrimination were not barred by the statute of limitations. The only acts alleged to have occurred within the two-year period were the review by President Koffler, which terminated on June 5, 1986 and the administrative grievance filed with the Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure (CAFT), which terminated with a denial on June 30, 1986.

The Supreme Court in Delaware State College v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250 (1980) held in a similar case that the filing limitations period commenced at the time the tenure decision was made and communicated to the defendant. Id. at 256-58. The Court further held that the pending decision of a grievance proceeding or some other method of collateral review of an employment decision does not toll the running of the limitations period. Id. at 260-61.

In this case, the employment decision was made and communicated to Miguelez at the very latest in August of 1985, more than two years before this action was commenced. The voluntary review by President Koffler and the grievance review by CAFT were merely collateral reviews of the employment decision and do not toll the running of the statute.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and 9th Cir.R. 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

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.