Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00572/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00572-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TADEUSZ KSIENIEWICZ,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv572-LAB (DHB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS; AND

ORDER DISMISSING

COMPLAINT

vs.

CITY OF LA MESA, et al.,

Defendant.

On March 12, 2013, Plaintiff Tadeusz Ksieniewicz filed his complaint along with a

motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The IFP motion is, however, incomplete. It omits

the date of Plaintiff’s last employment, how much he earned, and the name and address of

his last employer. Of the sources of income, he checked “Yes” for Social Security, disability,

or other welfare, but left all others blank. Although asked to provide the amount he received

and what he expects to continue to receive from this source of income, he left that portion

of the form blank. Although it appears likely Plaintiff would be eligible to proceed IFP, it isn’t

completely clear at this time. The IFP motion is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Assuming Plaintiff is able to file a complete IFP motion showing that he is without

funds to pay the filing fee, the Court will still be required to screen the complaint, and to

dismiss it to the extent it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks monetary

/ / /

- 1 - 13cv572

Case 3:13-cv-00572-LAB-DHB Document 4 Filed 03/18/13 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

relief from an immune defendant. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d

1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

The only source of jurisdiction the complaint identifies is federal question jurisdiction,

because the complaint identifies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as the basis for some of its claims. The

parties are not diverse, and the complaint seeks an award of $675 only, so diversity

jurisdiction is absent. If the § 1983 claim is invalid, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over

Plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims.

The complaint is based on the allegedly arbitrary towing of Plaintiff’s car. The

complaint doesn’t identify the date it happened, but describes a series of events separated

by one or two weeks. The last event in the series occurred when Plaintiff went to La Mesa

police headquarters to report his car stolen. He alleges police told him they towed or

confiscated his car. When he pointed out he had a disabled placard, which under Cal.

Vehicle Code § 22511.5 allowed him to park for unlimited times in certain restricted zones,

he alleges the police said they didn’t care about the law and were right to take his car. The

chronology alleged in the complaint shows this happened in the fall of 2010.

Because § 1983 does not have its own statute of limitations, the Court must apply the

most analogous state statute of limitations. In California, that statute of limitations is two

years. Maldonado v. Harris, 370 F.3d 945, 954–55 (9 Cir. 2004) (citing Azer v. Connell, 306 th

F.3d 930, 935 (9 Cir. 2002); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1). The statute of limitations on th

Plaintiff’s claims therefore expired in the fall of 2012, and his claims are time-barred by about

five months.

The Court also notes that state court records show Plaintiff is involved in litigation with

the City of La Mesa’s police department. Case number 37-2010-00071893-CL-CR-EC,

Tadeusz Ksieniewicz v. City of La Mesa Police Department is now on appeal. If this case

involves claims based on the same towing incident, the Court would likely abstain from

deciding this case until the state court case is final. See Janopaul + Block Companies, LLC

v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 830 F. Supp. 2d 976 (S.D.Cal., 2011) (where federal court

action involved substantially the same parties and issues as in state court proceedings,

- 2 - 13cv572

Case 3:13-cv-00572-LAB-DHB Document 4 Filed 03/18/13 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

federal court would apply the doctrine announced in Colorado River Water Conservation

Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976) and abstain pending resolution of appeals by

state court).

The complaint is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If Plaintiff believes

he can amend to show that he is entitled to tolling, he may file an amended complaint no

later than April 9, 2013. The amended complaint must provide the approximate date he

visited the police station to report his car stolen, and it must show why he is entitled to tolling. 

It must also state whether Plaintiff has been involved in any state court litigation or other

legal proceedings involving the towing of his car and, if so, what the outcome of those

proceedings or that litigation was. If he files an amended complaint, he must at the same

time either file a complete IFP motion, or else pay the filing fee. If he does not take both

these steps within the time permitted, this action will remain dismissed, and Plaintiff will not

be given leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 15, 2013

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cv572

Case 3:13-cv-00572-LAB-DHB Document 4 Filed 03/18/13 Page 3 of 3