From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Green v. Bastyr University

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 24, 2008
295 F. App'x 128 (9th Cir. 2008)

Summary

holding that statute of limitations was not tolled while the pro se plaintiff pursued other remedies that he was not required to exhaust before filing a civil rights complaint under Title VI

Summary of this case from Ransom v. San Jacinto Junior Coll.

Opinion

No. 07-36046.

Submitted September 8, 2008.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed September 24, 2008.

Riccardo Green, Seattle, WA, pro se.

Bryan Patrick O'Connor, Esq., Sarah Rebekah Capelli, Esq., Jackson Lewis LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-07-01170-JCC.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Riccardo Green appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his federal civil rights complaint, raising Title VI and Title IX claims, as untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Green's action as untimely because the statute of limitations was not tolled while Green pursued other remedies that he was not required to exhaust before filing suit against defendant. See Kling v. Los Angeles County, 633 F.2d 876, 879 (9th Cir. 1980) (explaining that exhaustion of Title IX administrative remedies is not required before filing a private action, and that Title IX is patterned after Title VI).

The district court properly determined that Green could not invoke the doctrines of equitable tolling and equitable estoppel because he did not diligently pursue his claims or show that the defendant engaged in any deception that caused him to miss the statutory deadline. See Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 927 (9th Cir. 2004) (explaining that for federal civil rights actions courts apply the forum state's law regarding tolling); Douchette v. Bethel School Dist. No. 403, 117 Wash.2d 805, 818 P.2d 1362, 1365 (1991) (en banc) ("In the absence of bad faith on the part of the defendant and reasonable diligence on the part of the plaintiff, equity cannot be invoked.").

Green's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Green v. Bastyr University

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 24, 2008
295 F. App'x 128 (9th Cir. 2008)

holding that statute of limitations was not tolled while the pro se plaintiff pursued other remedies that he was not required to exhaust before filing a civil rights complaint under Title VI

Summary of this case from Ransom v. San Jacinto Junior Coll.
Case details for

Green v. Bastyr University

Case Details

Full title:Riccardo GREEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BASTYR UNIVERSITY, LLC…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 24, 2008

Citations

295 F. App'x 128 (9th Cir. 2008)

Citing Cases

Sponcey v. Banner-Churchill Hosp.

Recent California case law sets forth a doctrine of equitable tolling that allows the running of the…

Scutt v. Maui Family Life Ctr.

Title VI similarly does not require a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies. See Kling v. Los Angeles…