Einheber

Einheber v. Regents of the University

Good Law
119 F. App'x 861
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 14, 2004No. 03-15526California432 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

This case arises from Officer Jack Einheber’s 1991 termination from the University of California at Berkeley Police Department for two incidents of off-duty misconduct.

The district court erred by dismissing on statute of limitations grounds Einheber’s Rehabilitation Act claim for his 1991 termination, without considering the potential applicability of equitable tolling. Under Cervantes v. City of San Diego, 5 F.3d 1273 (9th Cir.1993), plaintiffs need not literally raise “equitable tolling” in the complaint for the doctrine to apply. Rather, “the sole issue is whether the complaint, liberally construed in light of our ‘notice pleading’ system, adequately alleges facts showing the potential applicability of the equitable tolling doctrine.” Id. at 1277 (emphasis in original). Einheber’s allegations in his pro se complaint that he had exhausted all administrative remedies, and that his termination had been reviewed by a hearing officer and the UC Berkeley Chancellor, are sufficient to plead the potential applicability of equitable tolling. The 1991 Rehabilitation Act claim is remanded to the district court to conduct a thorough equitable tolling analysis. •

The…

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.