Zontelli v. City of Duluth
Joseph Curtis Zontelli v. City of Duluth, a municipal corporation; Marc Johnson, Officer, in their individual and official capacities; Jill Kettleson, Officer, in their individual and official capacities; Adam Huot, Officer, in their individual and official capacities; Gordon Ramsay, Former Chief of Police, in their individual and official capacities; St. Louis County, a municipal corporation; Roseau County, a municipal corporation; Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, (BCA) a state agency; Officer Dejesus, individual and in his official capacity; Paul Gherardi, individual and in his official capacity; Jerry Koneczny, individual and in his official capacity; S/A Bennett, individual and in his official capacity; Jane Doe 1, Administrative Clerk; Jane Doe 10, Roseau County Agent; John Doe 2; John Doe 3, Duluth Police Officer – Formerly identified as Roe; John Doe Officers 4–10, IT & Forensic P
- Jerry Blackwell
- 0:26-cv-00991
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
In Joseph Curtis Zontelli v. City of Duluth, Judge Blackwell dismissed the claims without prejudice as time-barred and denied the fee-waiver request as moot.
Joseph Curtis Zontelli’s amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and his application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was denied as moot. The order did not reach the merits of his excessive-force allegations.
What happened
In Joseph Curtis Zontelli v. City of Duluth, Joseph Curtis Zontelli alleged that Duluth Police Officer Marc Johnson used excessive force during an August 11, 2014 incident by shooting him twice in the back while he was on the ground and being bitten by a police dog. He also asserted claims against other defendants under federal civil-rights law, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The court held that the claims were filed after the applicable deadlines. It rejected Zontelli’s argument that the deadlines should be extended because Gordon Ramsay allegedly concealed or altered video evidence, finding that Zontelli had not shown that the concealment prevented him from knowing that he had been injured or had a possible claim.
Judge Jerry W. Blackwell dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice as time-barred under the statute governing fee-waiver cases. The court also denied Zontelli’s application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot.
The detailed version
- Zontelli v. City of Duluth · No. 0:26-cv-00991
- Jerry W. Blackwell
- Apr. 20, 2026
Background
Joseph Curtis Zontelli filed an amended complaint against the City of Duluth, Marc Johnson, Jill Kettleson, Adam Huot, Gordon Ramsay, St. Louis County, Roseau County, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, and other named and unidentified defendants. He alleged that on August 11, 2014, Duluth Police Officer Marc Johnson shot him twice in the back while Zontelli was on the ground, unarmed, and being bitten by a police K9. Zontelli alleged that the shooting caused significant injuries, including severing his jugular vein and striking his spine.
Zontelli asserted that the use of force violated the Fourth Amendment. He also alleged that the City of Duluth and former Police Chief Gordon Ramsay conspired to deprive him of constitutional rights by withholding or altering video and audio evidence of the incident. The amended complaint asserted Fourth Amendment and municipal-liability claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as well as claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Zontelli did not pay the filing fee and applied to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. The court found that he financially qualified for that status, but explained that it still had to review the complaint before taking further action.
Statute of Limitations
The court explained that a claim generally begins to accrue when the plaintiff has a complete claim and can bring suit. An excessive-force claim accrues on the date of the alleged use of force. The court stated that Minnesota applies a six-year limitations period to the relevant civil-rights claims under Section 1983, a four-year period to civil RICO claims, and a six-year period to ADA claims.
Because the alleged use of force occurred more than ten years before the lawsuit, the court concluded that the claims were outside the applicable limitations periods.
Zontelli argued that the limitations periods should be extended because defendants had concealed video evidence for twelve years. The court described equitable tolling as a doctrine that suspends a filing deadline when a litigant acted diligently but extraordinary circumstances prevented a timely filing. Under Minnesota law, the court stated, equitable tolling in this context requires fraudulent concealment—an affirmative act or statement that concealed a possible claim, was knowingly false or made with reckless disregard for the truth, and could not have been discovered through reasonable diligence.
The court found Zontelli’s allegations insufficient. It noted that he did not explain what he did to obtain the evidence or what prevented him from obtaining it. It also found that he could not show that the alleged concealment prevented him from knowing the facts underlying his excessive-force claim, because he personally experienced the alleged use of force.
Disposition
The court dismissed Zontelli’s amended complaint without prejudice as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the statute governing review of complaints filed by people seeking to proceed without prepaying fees. The court denied his application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs as moot. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.