Khan v. City of Lodi, et al.

Summary

The United States Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal of Muddsar Khan’s pro se action against the City of Lodi and related defendants. The recommendations conclude that claims against the City, Hitchcock, and Woods are barred by res judicata, while claims against Yasir Khan are time-barred and fail to state a federal claim. The court also recommends declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims and dismissing the complaint without leave to amend.

Holdings

1. The claims against the City of Lodi, Hitchcock, and Woods are barred by res judicata because the 2017 action involved the same parties or parties in privity, arose from the same transactional nucleus of facts, and ended in a stipulated dismissal with prejudice that constituted a final judgment on the merits.
2. Plaintiff's federal claims against Yasir Khan are time-barred because they accrued no later than January 2021, the applicable limitations period was two years, and even assuming two years of incarceration tolling, the action was due by January 10, 2025 but was filed on April 3, 2025.
3. Plaintiff failed to state a § 1983 claim against Yasir Khan because the complaint did not allege sufficient facts showing that Yasir acted under color of state law.
4. The court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against Yasir Khan after dismissal of all federal claims.
5. Leave to amend should be denied because the defects in the complaint could not be cured by amendment and amendment would be futile.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's claims against the City of Lodi, Hitchcock, and Woods were barred by res judicata based on the 2017 action.
2. Whether Plaintiff's federal and state-law claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, including any potential tolling for incarceration.
3. Whether Plaintiff stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Yasir Khan by alleging that Yasir acted under color of state law.
4. Whether the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after dismissal of the federal claims.
5. Whether Plaintiff should be granted leave to amend.

Disposition

other