green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
46.9 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2021–2025 ·
…oregon's two- year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to actions under 42 u.s.c. 1983 .
at p. 105
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "but see"
United States v. Joel Seminole
But see Gubiensio-Ortiz v. Kanahele, 871 F.2d 104 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (hereinafter Gubiensio II) (overruling Gubiensio I).
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Conn v. Multnomah Co. Sheriff
oregon's two- year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to actions under 42 u.s.c. 1983 .
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
McGhee v. Forest Ridge Apartments LLC
when papers are mailed to the 22 clerk's office, filing is complete when the papers are received by the clerk.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Wilson v. State of Oregon
oregon's two- year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to actions under 42 u.s.c. 1983 .
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Todd v. Boyd
oregon's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to actions under 42 u.s.c. 1983 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cameron McKinney & Caron McKinney v. Sgt. Murray, et al.
Ala. 2001) (citing Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Turner v. Singletary, 46 F.Supp.2d 1238, 1242 (N.D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gardner v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC
“When papers are mailed to the clerk’s office, filing is complete when 21 the papers are received by the clerk.” Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th 22 Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
WHITWORTH v. FRANKLIN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER
“When papers are mailed to the clerk’s office, filing is complete when the papers are received by the clerk.” Id. (quoting Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam)) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Whitaker v. Steward
Thus, "Oregon's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ." Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (collecting cases).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Boyd v. Reyes
Thus, "Oregon's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ." Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Loftis v. Arisco
Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989) (emphasis added).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) McVay v. Rodriguez
Cooper 12 v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989) (emphasis added). 13 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 14 1.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Rodgers-Castillo v. Allen
Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989) 23 24 1 The Court may take judicial notice of public information stored on the CDCR California Incarcerated Records and Information Search (“CIRIS”) website.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Rodgers-Castillo v. Allen
Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989) 23 24 1 The Court may take judicial notice of public information stored on the CDCR California Incarcerated Records and Information Search (“CIRIS”) website.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hurtado v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Ariz. July 22 24, 2020) (“The complaint is …considered to be filed as of … the date stamped on the 23 complaint as received (as opposed to when it may have been docketed), and not the mailing 24 date.”) (emphasis in original); Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989) 25 (“When papers are mailed to the clerks office, filing is complete when the papers are 26 received by the clerk.”) (emphasis added); see also In re Godfrey, 102 B.R 769, 771 (9th 27 Cir. 1989) (“In a case where it is disputed exactly when the petition was placed in the 28 possession of the clerk…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bunker v. McCormick
“When papers are mailed to the 23 clerk’s office, filing is complete when the papers are received by the clerk.” Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Estrada v. Odyssey Services Incorporated
Cooper v. City of 9 Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989). 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing the Complaint, sua sponte. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has leave to file an Amended 12 Complaint by March 1, 2024. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that THE AMENDED COMPLAINT MUST BE 14 CLEARLY DESIGNATED AS "AMENDED COMPLAINT" ON THE FACE OF THE 15 DOCUMENT.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bartholomew v. Kralik
P. 5(d)(2); Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Estrada v. Odyssey Services Incorporated
Cooper v. City of 9 Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989). 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing the Complaint, sua sponte. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has leave to file an Amended 12 Complaint by March 1, 2024. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that THE AMENDED COMPLAINT MUST BE 14 CLEARLY DESIGNATED AS "AMENDED COMPLAINT" ON THE FACE OF THE 15 DOCUMENT.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Monegas v. City and County of San Francisco Department of Public Health
But the rule is, “[w]hen papers are mailed to the clerk’s 12 || office, filing is complete when the papers are received by the clerk.” Cooper v. City of Ashland, 5 13 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); see also Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Maricela Ramirez v. Joshua Kornegay
Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); Or.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mendenhall v. Kendall
Off., 685 F. App’x 824, 826 (11th Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (finding “no merit” to plaintiff’s argument that her amended complaint was timely because she placed it in the mail on the date of the court’s filing deadline and concluding that plaintiff filed her amended complaint on “the date it was received by the clerk’s office”); Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. (Continued) amended complaint, along with more than 600 pages of purported exhibits.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gillis v. Chapman
“Oregon’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .” Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Estrada v. North Kern State Prison
Now that Plaintiff has been released from custody, “[w]hen papers are 6 mailed to the clerk’s office, filing is complete when the papers are received by the clerk.” Cooper 7 v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Moorehead v. Pima County Sheriff's Department
Cooper v. City of 22 Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989). 23 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing the Complaint, sua sponte. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff has leave to file an Amended 25 Complaint by October 30, 2019. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that THE AMENDED COMPLAINT MUST BE 27 CLEARLY DESIGNATED AS "AMENDED COMPLAINT" ON THE FACE OF THE 28 DOCUMENT.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Andre Lesgras v. Aetna Life Insurance
P’ship, 495 F.3d 1119 , 1125–26 (9th Cir. 2007) (addressing the timeliness of a Title VII action after receipt of a right-to- sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission); Patterson v. Stewart, 251 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th Cir. 2001) (addressing the “appropriate ending” of the one- year grace period under the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996); Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam) (holding that because the last day of Oregon’s two-year statute of limitations in a personal injury suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ended o…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilke v. City of Burns
See Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110(1); Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wimberly v. Kitzhaber
The district court properly dismissed this civil rights action under Oregon’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions, see Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir.1989) (citing Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110(1)), because it is clear from the face of the complaint that the statute had expired before Wimberly filed the action, and Wimberly cannot prove the statute was tolled, see Jablon v. Dean Witter & Co., 614 F.2d 677, 682 (9th Cir.1980).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Hurst
See Hernandez v. Aldridge, 902 F.2d 386, 388 (5th Cir.1990); Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir.1989); see also James William Moore, 1 Moore's Federal Practice § 5.30[l][a][ii] (3d ed.2002) (stating that “[Rendering the materials which require filing to the clerk constitutes filing regardless of whether or not the clerk physically files the papers in the proper place in a timely fashion”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Castillo v. Grogan
Stat. § 12.110(1); Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Barker v. Fugazzi
Cooper v. City of Ash-land, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Strickland v. Wayne Farms-Southland Hatchery
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“When papers are mailed to the clerk’s office, filing is complete when the papers are received by the clerk.” Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam); Turner v. Singletary, 46 F.Supp.2d 1238, 1242 (N.D.Fla.1999).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Crawford-Mulley v. CORNING INC.
See, e.g., U.S. v. White, 980 F.2d 836, 845 (2d Cir.1992) (holding that filing requires delivery of papers into the actual custody of the clerk); U.S. v. 1979 Cadillac Sedan Deville, 793 F.Supp. 492, 493-494 (D.Vt.1992) (holding that filing “carries the meaning not of sending papers, but of delivery into the actual custody’ of the clerk) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ortiz v. County of Orange, 152 F.3d 928 (9th Cir.1998); Haney v. Mizell Memorial Hospital, 744 F.2d 1467, 1472 (11th Cir.1984) (notice of appeal is deemed filed when it is received by clerk, and that “simply d…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nearhood v. Tops Markets, Inc.
See, e.g., U.S. v. White, 980 F.2d 836, 845 (2d Cir.1992) (holding that filing requires delivery of papers into the actual custody of the clerk); U.S. v. 1979 Cadillac Sedan Deville, 793 F.Supp. 492, 493-494 (D.Vt.1992) (holding that filing “carries the meaning not of sending papers, but of delivery into the actual custody” of the clerk) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ortiz v. County of Orange, 152 F.3d 928 (9th Cir.1998); Haney v. Mizell Memorial Hospital, 744 *306 F.2d 1467, 1472 (11th Cir.1984) (notice of appeal is deemed filed when it is received by clerk, and that “sim…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gowin v. Multnomah County
Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Precious Lee-Mcduffie v. City of Artesia Paul Philips Alicia Ley Bethene Palmer
See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d 1211, 1219-20 (9th Cir.1991) (finding that in California, a party has 300 days to file a charge with the EEOC); see also 42 U.S.C.2000e-5(f)(1) (party has 90 days after receipt of right to sue letter to file a lawsuit); Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam) (finding complaint received by clerk's office before statute of limitations expired was timely filed). 6 Because Lee-McDuffie's complaint provided defendants with notice of the legal theories advanced, the district court erred by dismissing the comp…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fort v. Hailey
Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110(1); Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir.1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kenneth Don Barrett, Jr. v. John Moran
Moreover, "[w]hen papers are mailed to the clerk's office, filing is complete when the papers are received by the clerk." Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir.1989) 2 Nev.Rev.Stat.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Paul M. Allen v. Gresham Police Department
See Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110(1); Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam). 4 Allen alleged that in 1985 and 1986 he was wrongfully arrested and incarcerated by the Department and that he was beaten by police officers employed by the Department.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Willie L. Reed v. Ron Angelone
"When papers are mailed to the clerk's office, filing is complete when the papers are received by the clerk." Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Adamson v. City of Provo, Utah
Moreover, the Ninth Circuit, following Garcia, has subsequently found that "Oregon’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions applies to actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .” Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir.1989) (citing Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110 (1989)). 16 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gilbert L. Lane v. Art Martinak
Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir.1989) (citing Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110(1)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Magula v. Derwinski
Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 5.11 (2d ed. 1988); Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105-06 (9th Cir.1989); cf. Greenwood v. State of N.Y.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harrison v. County of Alameda
In Joshua v. Newell, 871 F.2d 884, 886 (9th Cir.1989), the court found that the appropriate statute of limitations for section 1983 claims was Wash.Rev.Code § 4.16.080 which encompasses “any other injury to the person or rights of another not hereinafter enumerated.” Cooper v. Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir.1989), determined that the appropriate limitations period for section 1983 claims was Or.Rev.Stat. § 12.110(1), which includes actions involving “any injury to the person or rights of another, not arising on contract, and not especially enumerated in this chapter.” Furthermor…
discussed
Cited "see"
Squalls v. Brennan
See Wiley v. Johnson, 436 F.Supp.2d 91 , 96 12 (D.D.C. 2006) (“Courts apply the ninety-day time limit strictly and will dismiss a suit for 13 missing the deadline by even one day.”). 14 Plaintiff first argues that she timely mailed her complaint on October 28, 2019, and 15 that she reasonably believed the mailing date equated to the filing date (Doc. 15 at 4). 16 “When papers are mailed to the clerk’s office, [however,] filing is complete when the 17 papers are received by the clerk.” Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 18 1989) (emphasis added); see also In re God…
cited
Cited "see"
Mary Benafel v. Williams Northwest Pipeline
See Cooper v. Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam).
cited
Cited "see"
Strother v. Frerichs
See Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104, 105 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited "see"
McIntosh v. Flynn
See Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104 , ___ ______ _______________ 105 (9th Cir. 1989) (per curiam); see also Torras Herreria v. M/V ___ ____ _______________ ___ Timur Star, 803 F.2d 215, 216 (6th Cir. 1986) ("Filings reaching ___________ the clerk's office after a deadline are untimely, even if mailed before the deadline.").
discussed
Cited "see"
McIntosh v. Antonino
See Cooper v. City of Ashland, 871 F.2d 104 , 105 *37 (9th Cir.1989) (per curiam); see also Torras Herreria v. M/V Timur Star, 803 F.2d 215, 216 (6th Cir.1986) (“Filings reaching the clerk’s office after a deadline are untimely, even if mailed before the deadline.”).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Jesus Rodriguez-Lopez
See Gubiensio-Ortiz v. Kanahele, 871 F.2d 104 (9th Cir.1989).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jose Gubiensio-Ortiz
v.
Al Kanahele, Warden, Metropolitan Correctional Center San Diego, California, United States of America v. Raul Chavez-Sanchez
v.
Al Kanahele, Warden, Metropolitan Correctional Center San Diego, California, United States of America v. Raul Chavez-Sanchez
88-5848.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Mar 31, 1989.
Published
Jose GUBIENSIO-ORTIZ, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Al KANAHELE, Warden, Metropolitan Correctional Center San
Diego, California, Respondent-Appellee.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Raul CHAVEZ-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellee.
Nos. 88-5848, 88-5109.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 2, 1989.
Decided March 31, 1989.
On Remand from the United States Supreme Court.
Before WIGGINS, BRUNETTI, KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
1
On August 23, 1988, we held the Sentencing Guidelines, challenged in these cases, to be unconstitutional (Wiggins, dissenting). On January 23, 1989, the Supreme Court simultaneously granted a petition for writ of certiorari and vacated the judgment, remanding to this court for further consideration in light of Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 647, 102 L.Ed.2d 714 (1988). United States v. Chavez-Sanchez, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 859, 102 L.Ed.2d 984 (1989) vacating Gubiensio-Ortiz v. Kanahele, 857 F.2d 1245 (1988). In Mistretta, the Supreme Court upheld the Sentencing Guidelines against the same Constitutional challenges that we considered in the instant case.
2
Upon reconsideration in light of Mistretta, we affirm Gubiensio-Ortiz v. United States, No. 88-5848. In United States v. Chavez-Sanchez, 88-5109, we reverse and remand for resentencing under the guidelines.