The Case Of The Lawsuit

820 WordsJul 13, 20154 Pages
The Complaint Should Be Dismissed Because the Statute of Limitations Has Ran Shahmaleki’s complaint is futile because the statute limitation has run on the civil rights claims. 42 U.S.C. § 1982 does not include its own statutes of limitations. Instead, courts borrow limitation periods from state law. Courts adopt the most analogous limitations period. In Kansas, the analogous action for § 1983 is injury to the rights of another. That means under Kansas law, the statutes of limitations for claims arising out of § 1983 is two years. Here, the statutes of limitations period has passed. The claim set out by Shahmaleki arose on May 1, 2013. As two years have passed since the claim arose, the statute of limitations has run and this Court should dismiss Shahmaleki’s complaint. The amended complaint also does not relate back to the original complaint. An amendment to change or add a party must meet the requirements listed under 15(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for it relate back. These requirements are 1) the amended claim must arise out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set out in the original pleading, 2) sufficient notice must be provided to the new parties, and 3) the new defendants must have known or should have known that the action would be brought against them, but for a mistake concerning the proper party’s identity. In this case, the Defendants do not dispute the first two requirements, but Shahmaleki has not shown his amended
Open Document