Washeleski v. City of Santa Clara

Background

Self-represented plaintiff Pawl Washeleski sued the City of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court had granted his application to proceed without paying the filing fee and therefore screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

Washeleski alleged that the case arose from a 2013 arrest in which he was arrested, jailed, and humiliated for alleged perjury, with no charges filed. He also described a recent refusal by the Santa Clara Police Department to investigate his own perjury allegations against third parties. He argued that the recent refusal conflicted with his 2013 arrest.

Screening and statute of limitations

The court concluded that the claim was untimely. California’s two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury actions applies to Washeleski’s § 1983 claim. Because the complaint was filed on May 5, 2025, a claim that accrued before May 5, 2023 generally was too late.

The court determined that the claim based on the 2013 arrest accrued when the arrest occurred because Washeleski knew then about the alleged constitutional injury. It found that he did not allege facts delaying accrual or tolling the limitations period. The court also found his allegations insufficient to use California’s delayed-discovery rule because he did not allege that he could not have discovered the relevant facts through a reasonable investigation in 2013.

Leave to amend

The court DISMISSED the complaint with leave to amend because this was its first ruling on the claim’s legal sufficiency and Washeleski was self-represented. It ordered any amended complaint filed by January 16, 2026. The court warned that it may dismiss the complaint without granting further leave to amend if the amended complaint does not plausibly allege a timely claim.

The court instructed that any amended complaint must be a single document identifying each claim against each defendant, the legal theory for each claim, and the relief sought. It also instructed Washeleski to use initials rather than full names when referring to his minor children.

Preliminary-injunction motion

The court DENIED Washeleski’s motion for a preliminary injunction. He sought declaratory relief concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the 2013 arrest, outside review of his evidence of perjury, and future protections against retaliation, suppression, or obstruction.

The court gave two reasons. First, a preliminary injunction may issue only after notice to the opposing party, and Washeleski had not filed proof that any defendant received notice. Second, he had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits or raised sufficiently serious questions about his claim. Because the court found the claim not plausibly stated and time-barred, it concluded that Washeleski was not entitled to preliminary relief.

Motion to appoint counsel

The court DENIED Washeleski’s motion to appoint counsel without prejudice to the court appointing counsel later if appropriate. The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting appointment at that time. It stated that Washeleski had not shown a likelihood of success and that the issues were not complex enough to show that he could not present his claim without counsel.

Other matters and disposition

The court directed Washeleski to the Northern District of California’s webpage for information about disability accommodations and stated that the courts are not subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act but provide reasonable accommodations to remove disability-related barriers to court services.

The court SUSPENDED service by the United States Marshals Service of the complaint and other papers until further order finding that Washeleski had plausibly stated a claim. It DENIED all other pending motions, VACATED the December 17, 2025 case-management conference, and allowed it to be rescheduled as appropriate after screening an amended complaint.