Unpublished Disposition, 880 F.2d 416 (9th Cir. 1989)

 Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 880 F.2d 416 (9th Cir. 1989)

Paul HOESTEREY, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.The CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY, et. al. Defendants-Appellees.

No. 88-5975.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 5, 1989.Decided July 14, 1989.

Before SNEED, REINHARDT and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Appellant alleged in his complaint that he had been denied procedural due process by the appellees. He claims that as a nonprobationary employee, he was entitled to a pretermination hearing. Apparently, such a hearing could take place anytime prior to the date when appellant was actually discharged. However, the district court did not consider whether the statute of limitations began to run when appellant was notified that he was to be discharged or when appellees failed to provide a hearing.

Accordingly, we remand the case to the district court for consideration of this issue.1 

REMANDED.

 1

At oral argument, the appellant contended that as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in Owens v. Okure, 109 S. Ct. 573 (1989), the applicable statute of limitations for a Section 1983 claim under the California Code of Civil Procedure is now 4 years, rather than the previously established one year. See, e.g., Donoghue v. Count of Orange, 828 F.2d 1432, 1436 (9th Cir. 1987). This contention is without merit. Del Percio v. Thornsley, No. 88-5753, slip. op. at 6190 (9th Cir. June 9, 1989)

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.