BILLY CEPERO V. DOUGLAS GILLESPIE, No. 15-15039 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED AUG 05 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BILLY CEPERO, No. 15-15039 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01421-JADGWF v. DOUGLAS GILLESPIE; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 26, 2016** 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). Kneivel v. ESPN, 393 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 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 814, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (pro se prisoner constructively filed amended complaint before filing deadline when it was received but returned unfiled by the district court). Therefore, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings. We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”). REVERSED and REMANDED. 2 15-15039
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.
