Wyrzykowski v. County of Marin et al

Filing 10

ORDER (1) DENYING AS MOOT 7 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME, (2) DENYING 9 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND (3) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE ADDRESSES FOR DEFENDANTS. To enable the U.S. Marshal to serve Defendants, Plaintiff must provide the Clerk of the Court with addresses at which Defendants may be served. Plaintiff is directed to provide these addresses by November 18, 2014. Signed by Judge Laurel Beeler on 11/6/2014. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11
TADEUSZ WYRZYKOWSKI,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15

v.
COUNTY OF MARIN, et al.,

16
17
18

Defendants.

No. C 14-03825 LB
ORDER (1) DENYING AS MOOT
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXTEND
TIME, (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO FILE A SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND (3)
DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO
PROVIDE ADDRESSES FOR
DEFENDANTS

_____________________________________/
On August 22, 2014, Plaintiff Tadeusz Wyrzykowski, who is proceeding pro se, filed a

19

complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Complaint, ECF No. 1; IFP Application,

20

ECF No. 3.1 After conducting its review of his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court

21

determined that it failed to state a claim. The court was unable to discern any legally cognizable

22

claim in Plaintiff’s complaint. The court noted that Plaintiff listed several laws and legal doctrines

23

in the caption of the complaint (e.g., violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal

24

protection under the law; fraud; intentional infliction of emotional distress; etc.) and alleged that

25

county supervisors, agents, and employees caused her damage generally, but Plaintiff did not say

26
27
1

28

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the ECF-generated page
numbers at the top of the document.
ORDER
C 14-03825 LB

1

how Defendants violated any of the laws or doctrines mentioned. Therefore, on September 18,

2

2014, the court granted Plaintiff’s IFP Application, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, see

3

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Marks v. Solcum, 98 F.3d 494, 495 (9th Cir. 1996), and gave Plaintiff thirty

4

days from the date of that order in which to file an amended complaint. 9/18/2014 Order, ECF No.

5

6.

6

On October 6, 2014—within the thirty-day deadline—Plaintiff filed a motion to extend the time

7

for filing an amended complaint. Motion to Extend Time, ECF No. 7. Plaintiff said that he

8

experienced a medical emergency that will prevent him from filing an amended complaint for at six

9

more months. Plaintiff thus asked the court to allow him at least six more months to do so,

10

essentially staying the case for at least that period of time.
While the court was reviewing Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

FAC, ECF No. 8. It provides additional allegation against Defendants, the gist of which are that

13

Defendants failed to apply his tax payments to property that he owns, forced him to pay taxes twice,

14

fraudulently labeled his property as having delinquent taxes, and ignored or wrongfully denied his

15

attempts to dispute the charges. A few days later, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a Second

16

Amended Complaint. Motion for Leave to Amend, ECF No. 9.

17

Without expressing any opinion about the merit of his claims, the court finds that his First

18

Amended Complaint is sufficiently clear to pass the § 1915(e)(2) review. The court also finds good

19

cause to excuse Plaintiff’s delay in filing it. To enable the U.S. Marshal to serve Defendants,

20

however, Plaintiff must provide the Clerk of the Court with addresses at which Defendants may be

21

served. Plaintiff is directed to provide these addresses by November 18, 2014. Upon receipt of

22

these addresses, the court will direct the U.S. Marshal to served Defendants with the First Amended

23

Complaint and summons.

24

Because the court has determined that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint passes the §

25

1915(e)(2) review, the court does not believe that a Second Amended Complaint is warranted at this

26

time. Once Defendants are served with the First Amended Complaint and appear in the action,

27

Plaintiff may make this request again. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Second

28

Amended Complaint is denied, and Plaintiff’s motion to extend the time for filing an amended
ORDER
C 14-03825 LB

2

1
2
3

complaint is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 6, 2014
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER
C 14-03825 LB

3