(PS) Khan v. City of Lodi
2:25-cv-01007
| E.D. Cal. | Jun 11, 2025Background
- Muddsar Khan, proceeding pro se, filed suit against the City of Lodi, two police officers (Hitchcock and Woods), and Yasir Khan, alleging false law enforcement investigations and related harms beginning in 2015.
- Several of Khan’s claims were previously litigated in two prior actions: one dismissed with prejudice following a stipulated agreement (2017 case), and another dismissed without prejudice for failure to serve (2022 case).
- The current complaint repeats allegations regarding the posting of Khan’s photo and crime description on Lodi Police’s Facebook page and a resulting assault in 2021.
- Khan argued the statute of limitations should be tolled due to his incarceration from February 2022 to December 2024.
- The court issued an order to show cause addressing statute of limitations and res judicata; Khan did not respond to the res judicata issue.
- The court recommends dismissal: claims against Lodi, Hitchcock, and Woods are barred by res judicata; claims against Yasir are time-barred, fail to state a federal claim, and are not subject to further supplemental jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata (Lodi et al.) | Did not address | Bars relitigation from 2017 action | Barred—2017 stipulated dismissal with prejudice |
| Statute of limitations | Should be tolled due to incarceration | Claims filed after even tolled SOL | Time-barred—tolling does not save untimely claims |
| Sufficiency of federal claim | Yasir conspired with police/assaulted Khan | Yasir not a state actor, conclusory | Insufficient—no state action by Yasir alleged |
| Leave to amend | Not expressly addressed | Futile due to defects | Denied—defects cannot be cured by amendment |
Key Cases Cited
- Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Plan. Agency, 322 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2003) (outlines when res judicata/claim preclusion applies)
- Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2001) (three-part test for res judicata)
- Headwaters v. U.S. Forest Service, 399 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2005) (stipulated dismissal with prejudice is final judgment for res judicata)
- Nance v. Ward, 597 U.S. 159 (2022) (§ 1983 claims borrow state personal injury limitations period)
- Fink v. Shedler, 192 F.3d 911 (9th Cir. 1999) (California prisoners may get up to two years’ tolling)
- Benavidez v. County of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2021) (state action requirement for § 1983)
- Simmons v. Sacramento County Sup. Ct., 318 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2003) (conclusory conspiracy allegations insufficient for § 1983)
- Foster v. Wilson, 504 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2007) (discretion to decline supplemental jurisdiction after dismissing federal claims)