From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stephan v. Dowdle

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 14, 1984
733 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1984)

Summary

concluding that an earlier panel decision was "no longer binding . . . and must be overruled" because the Arizona Court of Appeals had subsequently interpreted the relevant Arizona statute to the contrary

Summary of this case from In re Watts

Opinion

No. 83-1946.

Submitted March 30, 1984.

The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without argument pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 9th Cir.R. 3(a) and Fed.R.App.P. 34(b).

Decided May 14, 1984.

Alan F. Stephan, pro se.

Robert F. Ellig, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Ariz., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

Before SCHROEDER, FERGUSON, and NELSON, Circuit Judges.



Alan F. Stephan, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals the dismissal of his federal civil rights action. The district court found that Stephan's claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and that Stephan's confinement in prison did not toll the statute under Arizona's tolling provision, Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 12-502.

The district court relied on Major v. Arizona State Prison, 642 F.2d 311 (9th Cir. 1981), where this court held that § 12-502 did not toll the statute of limitations for prisoners. The Arizona Court of Appeals, however, in Smith v. MacDougall, 676 P.2d 656 (Ariz. App. 1983), reached the opposite conclusion and held that under § 12-502, confinement in prison tolls the applicable statute of limitations. The Arizona Supreme Court has declined to review that decision. Because federal courts must look to state statutes of limitations and tolling provisions for actions brought under § 1983, see Board of Regents v. Tomanio, 446 U.S. 478, 483-85, 100 S.Ct. 1790, 1794-95, 64 L.Ed.2d 440 (1980), and are bound by a state court's construction of the laws of that state, see Gentry v. MacDougall, 685 F.2d 322, 323 (9th Cir. 1982), the holding in Major on the applicability of Arizona's tolling provision to prisoners is no longer binding on this court and must be overruled.

Reversed.


Summaries of

Stephan v. Dowdle

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
May 14, 1984
733 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1984)

concluding that an earlier panel decision was "no longer binding . . . and must be overruled" because the Arizona Court of Appeals had subsequently interpreted the relevant Arizona statute to the contrary

Summary of this case from In re Watts

mentioning Tomanio and state-court interpretation of state law, overrules Circuit precedent and holds Arizona's tolling provision applies to inmates' actions pursuant to § 1983

Summary of this case from Hardin v. Straub
Case details for

Stephan v. Dowdle

Case Details

Full title:ALAN F. STEPHAN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. EARL B. DOWDLE, ET AL.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 14, 1984

Citations

733 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1984)

Citing Cases

De Luna v. Farris

It is well established law that federal courts must apply not only the appropriate state statute of…

Vargas v. Jago

Perhaps the safest course we can assume is to take our cue from the above-cited cases to examine what the…