Douglas

Douglas v. Noelle

Bad Law
567 F.3d 1103·2009 WL 1564235·73 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1105·2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12512
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 5, 200906-35195California3,118 words

Opinion

Opinion

Fletcher, J.

Between July 2000 and December 2002, Dameion Douglas was in the custody of the Multnomah County Sheriffs Office in Portland, Oregon. In 2004, Douglas, acting pro se, filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , alleging that Sheriffs Office personnel (collectively “Defendants”) violated his First Amendment rights on six occasions while he was in jail. The district court held that Douglas failed to file his complaint within the applicable statute of limitations and dismissed his complaint.

We reverse the district court and hold that the mailbox rule of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 , 108 S.Ct. 2379 , 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), applies to a pro se prisoner’s § 1983 complaint. We further hold that at least one of Douglas’s claims was timely filed.

I. Background

Douglas’s complaint contains six claims that Defendants violated his First Amendment rights by interfering with his exercise of religion and his right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Each of the claims is based on a particular episode of alleged interference, but Douglas contends that all of the claims are part of a pattern of illegal behavior by Defendants. All of the alleged events occurred while Douglas…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.