I. ANALYSIS

In its Rule 12(6)(6) motion to dismiss, Holy Family Hospital alleges that Kosyla’s
complaint is time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations and that, in any event, Kosyla
fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Under the motion to dismiss standard discussed
above, Kosyla therefore was required to identify the specific legal basis for his claim and make
adequate arguments in support thereof in his response brief.

A. Statute of Limitations

The time period for filing a federal civil rights claim is controlled by the statute of
limitations for personal injury claims in the state where the alleged injury occurred. Sanders v.
Venture Stores, Inc., 56 F.3d 771, 775 n.2 (7 Cir. 1995) (citations omitted). In Ilinois, the
applicable statute of limitations period is two years from the date of the injury. 735 ILCS 5/13-
202 (1987). In plain English, the statute of limitations for a Section 1985 claim is “borrowed”
from the Illinois personal injury statute. Therefore, a Section 1985 claim must be brought within
two years of the date of the alleged civil rights violation or it will be barred as untimely.

Defendant Holy Family Hospital argues that Kosyla’s instant complaint is untimely
because he filed it more than two years after his alleged injury occurred. Moreover, Holy Family
contends, even Kosyla’s previous complaint (No. 03 C 9371) was untimely because it was filed
two months after the two-year statute of limitations period ended. Plaintiff Kosyla argues that
because his complaint alleges a federal civil rights violation, the statute of limitations for
personal injury causes of action is irrelevant. Kosyla’s argument fails because the Seventh Circuit
has held that the statute of limitations period for Section 1985 actions brought in federal court in

Illinois is the same as the statute of limitations period for personal injury actions under Illinois

4.



I. | MOTION TO DISMISS STANDARD

On a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff's
Complaint as true. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The purpose of a 12(b)(6) motion is to decide the
adequacy of the complaint, not to determine the merits of the case. Gibson v. City of Chicago,
910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7 Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). A plaintiff need not set out all relevant
facts or recite the law in his or her complaint. A plaintiff, however, must provide a short and
plain statement that shows that he or she is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Scott v. City of
Chicago, 195 F.3d 950, 951 (7% Cir. 1999). A complaint should not be dismissed “unless it
appears beyond all doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which
would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 90
(1957). Where a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, as Kosyla is doing here, the Court has a
heightened responsibility to construe the complaint liberally. See Donald v. Cook County
Sheriff's Dep't, 95 F.3d 548, 555 (7* Cir. 1996). A pro se plaintiff may plead himself out of
court, however, by pleading facts that undermine his case. Henderson v. Sheahan, 196 F.3d 839,
846 (7* Cir. 1999). A plaintiff is not required to identify specifically the legal basis for his or her
claim in the complaint. If, however, a motion to dismiss challenges one or more of the claims in
the complaint, then the plaintiff must respond by identifying the legal basis for the claim and
making adequate legal arguments in support of the claim. Kirksey v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
168 F.3d 1039, 1041-42 (7 Cir. 1999); Stransky v. Cummins Engine Co., 51 F.3d. 1329, 1335

(7" Cir. 1995).

3.


law. In Llinois, a plaintiff must bring his or her personal injury cause of action within two years
of the alleged injury. Therefore, in Ilinois, a plaintiff must bring his or her federal civil rights
violation cause of action within two years of the alleged violation. Kosyla failed to bring either of
his federal civil rights complaints within the two-year statute of limitations. For this reason, his

complaint is untimely and is therefore barred.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, Holy Family Hospital’s motion to dismiss is granted. All other

motions are moot and terminated. This case is closed.

Enter:

<

David H. Gear
United States District Judge

Dated: December 29, 2004

-5-


‘Minute Order Form (06/97)

. & United States District Court, Northern District of Mlinois
(
Name of Assigned Jud; ‘ Sitti if Other
ame Avie Jude David H. Coar ig Ide One
CASE NUMBER 04 C 1939 DATE 12/28/2004
CASE Stanley Kosyla vs. Holy Family Hospital
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented.]
MOTION:
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
DOCKET ENTRY:

@
Q)
@)
@)
(5)
©)
cs)
(8)
9)

(10)

a)

ia) Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

Oo Brief in support of motion due.

Qo Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer briefdue___.

Qa Ruling/Hearingon___setfor__at

a Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__setfor___—sat__—

Q Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set forlon___—_—ssetfor ss at_—
Qa Trial[set for/re-set for]on___—sat__—

a (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto__—at_—

Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to}

COFRCP4(m) Ci Local Rute 41.1 OOFRCP41(aX1) ( FRCP41(aX(2).

a [Other docket entry} For the reasons set forth on the attached memorandum opinion and order,
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. No. 8] is GRANTED. All other motions are moot and terminated.

This case is closed.

“Ceadt la

| [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required,

Notices mailed by judge's staff.
Notified counsel by telephone.

of | Docketing to mail notices.
7 | Mail AO 450 form. NIST Lantreig ag:
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. a
Aap:
QO tify &2 330 hoz
vile) inna x 5
int rz ‘Datefti
eres img received in
tral Clerk's Office :



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
STANLEY KOSYLA )
)
Plaintiff, )
) No. 04€ 1939
v. )
) HONORABLE DAVID H. COAR
HOLY FAMILY HOSPITAL ) ag
) Cy Ww
Defendant. ) wo wh
Mi @) ORDE!

This is a case involving a pro se plaintiff, Stanley Kosyla, who alleges violations of his
civil and constitutional rights arising from a September 2001 visit to the Holy Family Hospital.
Before this Court is defendant Holy Family Hospital’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. For the
reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is granted.

L FACTS

On September 19, 2001, plaintiff Stanley Kosyla (“Kosyla” or “Plaintiff’) complained of
chest pains. He was taken to the emergency room at Holy Family Hospital by Des Plaines,
INinois, paramedics. While in the emergency room, Kosyla complained of a head injury and
tequested that an x-ray be taken. The emergency room nurse on duty refused Kosyla’s request.
(PI.’s Compl. { 3.) Kosyla was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (“ICU”) at Holy Family.
While a patient in the ICU, Kosyla complained of pain in his arm at the site of his IV. The

attendant on duty refused any “medical procedure” to relieve Kosyia’s pain. (PI.’s Compl. { 4.)

ele

|D


Kosyla also alleges that he “was held without having contact with family members, after asking
for use of a telephone and being denied.” (PI.’s Compl. { 5.) Finally, Kosyla asserts, “while
acting UNDER COLOR OF LAW and in concert with the Des Plaines Police Department,” Holy
Family Hospital security personnel “illegally and without authority” prevented Kosyla from
leaving the hospital.

Kosyla filed a complaint against Holy Family Hospital in federal court on December 29,
2003, which was given docket number 03 C 9371 and assigned to Judge Hart. This complaint
asserted a Section 1985 claim against Holy Family Hospital, as well as violations of his First,
Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights,! (PL.’s Compl. in 03 C 9371.) Judge Hart directed the
Clerk of Court to enter judgment for Holy Family Hospital and dismissed Kosyla’s cause of
action without prejudice. Judge Hart’s memorandum opinion and order noted that “Plaintiff's
claim is frivolous because he does not allege conduct under color of law nor any other basis for
supporting a cognizable federal claim.” Kosyla v. Holy Family, No. 03-C-9371 (N.D. IIL Jan. 6,
2004) (mem.).

Kosyla filed the current complaint on March 15, 2004. The only substantive change in
this complaint, as compared to the complaint in 03-C-9371, is that Kosyla alleges that Holy
Family Hospital Security, acting under color of law and in concert with the Des Plaines Police
Department, illegally detained him and prevented him from leaving the hospital. (P1.’s Compl. {
6.) Holy Family Hospital has moved to dismiss Kosyla’s complaint as untimely under the

applicable statute of limitations and for failure to state a claim.

‘In its reply brief in support of its Motion to Dismiss in the instant case, Holy Family
Hospital states that it was never served in Kosyla’s 2003 action against it.

2-