Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nuno v. City of Calexico

filed*fn*: November 3, 1992.

MARCIAL NUNO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF CALEXICO, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. DC No. CV-88-1558-K. Judith N. Keep, District Judge, Presiding

Before: Sneed and D.w. Nelson, Circuit Judges, and Roll,**fn** District Judge.

MEMORANDUM

Marcial Nuno, terminated in 1985 from his employment with the City of Calexico (City), appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment dismissal of portions of his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985 and Title VII action against the City. See Order (Oct. 26, 1990). We affirm.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The City of Calexico, Appellee, hired Marcial Nuno, Appellant, as a police officer on November 30, 1981. Nuno was at that time a permanent resident alien.

California Government Code § 1031.5, which became effective on September 13, 1982, requires the disqualification from peace officer status of permanent resident aliens employed as peace officers who either (1) do not cooperate with the Immigration and Naturalization Service to become a United States citizen within three years of their application for employment or (2) are refused citizenship. On June 11, 1985, pursuant to the City's interpretation of the statute and based on Nuno's failure to pass his citizenship test, Nuno was terminated. Following his termination, there were several months of administrative appeals and hearings, ending with the City council's decision on February 26, 1986, affirming Nuno's termination.*fn1

The district court deemed Nuno's initial complaint filed September 7, 1988. This complaint contained claims based on both state and federal law. In April 1990, Nuno amended his complaint. Because the amended complaint was based on the same conduct as the original pleading, the district court held that the claims contained therein referred back to the September filing date. At that time, the court also held that it would not consider the pendent state claims. Rather, it explicitly held that it would consider only Nuno's 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985 actions, as well as his Title VII action.

On the City's motion for summary judgment, the district court dismissed all of Nuno's civil rights claims which had accrued prior to September 7, 1987, because Nuno failed to file these claims within the applicable statute of limitations. The district court also dismissed all but two of Nuno's Title VII claims.*fn2

Although the Judge made specific inquiries of Nuno to determine if the time limits were tolled, Nuno offered the district court no evidence to support a finding by the court that the statute of limitations was tolled.

On April 5, 1991, after another motion for summary judgment by the City, the remainder of Nuno's claims were dismissed.*fn3

II.

Discussion

Nuno appeals from the district court's dismissal of his pre-September 7, 1987, civil rights claims, as well as the district court's refusal to exercise jurisdiction over his pendent state claims. The district court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.