Zloza v. Something
3:23-cv-05532
| W.D. Wash. | Jul 19, 2023Background
- Pro se plaintiff Joseph Zloza sued "Brandon Something" and West Coast Training alleging Brandon spat on him on June 1, 2020.
- The court dismissed Zloza’s original complaint on July 2, 2023 under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and gave specific instructions for an amended complaint (jurisdiction, legal basis, specific facts, timing, and injury).
- Zloza filed an amended complaint but still failed to identify a constitutional or statutory basis for federal-question jurisdiction and provided limited facts.
- The complaint was filed under in forma pauperis review; the court applied liberal pro se pleading standards but required non-speculative factual allegations.
- The court determined the alleged battery occurred June 1, 2020, but Zloza did not file suit until June 12, 2023, so the claim is barred by Washington’s two-year statute of limitations for assault and battery claims.
- The court dismissed the amended complaint under § 1915(e)(2)(B) for lack of federal-question jurisdiction and untimeliness, and found further amendment would be futile; dismissal was with prejudice on July 19, 2023.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal-question jurisdiction | Zloza asserted a federal claim generally and speculated defendant might be a federal agent | No specific federal statute or constitutional provision pleaded to establish § 1331 jurisdiction | Court: No plausible federal-question alleged; jurisdiction not established |
| Adequacy of factual pleading under § 1915 / Rule 8 | Zloza alleged Brandon spat on him and gave a date but few other specifics | N/A (court found allegations conclusory and speculative) | Court: Allegations insufficient to raise a right to relief above speculation (Twombly standard) |
| Statute of limitations for battery | Zloza alleges the incident occurred June 1, 2020 | N/A (timing established from pleadings) | Court: Claim time-barred by Washington’s two-year statute for assault/battery |
| Leave to amend | Zloza was previously given leave and attempted to amend | N/A | Court: Further amendment would be futile; dismissal with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim, not merely speculative facts)
- Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000) (§1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis proceedings)
- McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050 (9th Cir. 1992) (pro se pleadings are construed liberally)
- Pacific Coast Fed’n of Fishermen’s Ass’ns v. Glaser, 945 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2019) (pleading must give defendants fair notice of claims and grounds)
- Lucas v. Dep’t of Corr., 66 F.3d 245 (9th Cir. 1995) (leave to amend required unless amendment would be futile)
- Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 325 P.3d 193 (Wash. 2014) (battery defined; supports application of Washington two-year limitation for assault/battery)