Rose v. State of Oregon

Summary

The court affirmed dismissal of the Estate’s claims in both appeals. It held that any error in dismissing the individual defendants for untimely service was harmless because the jury’s finding that the employer was not negligent foreclosed liability under section 1983, and it held that the later complaint was untimely because the claims accrued when the Estate knew or had reason to know of the injury and its immediate cause. The court also rejected equitable tolling because the Estate was not sufficiently diligent and no extraordinary circumstance prevented timely filing. No separate opinions were filed.