Kim v. City of Campbell
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:26-cv-10470
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Albert B. Kim v. City of Campbell, Judge Cousins granted a fee waiver and screening, but denied equitable tolling without prejudice.
Albert B. Kim and the City of Campbell. Kim may proceed without paying the filing fee, and his complaint will be served on the City; the equitable-tolling request may be raised again later.
What happened
In Albert B. Kim v. City of Campbell, Albert B. Kim, representing himself, alleged that the City of Campbell repeatedly failed to provide him an American Sign Language interpreter during interactions in 2019. He claimed this violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and requested equitable tolling.
The court granted Kim permission to proceed without paying filing fees. It also found that his complaint stated at least one claim that could proceed past the initial screening required for people who cannot pay filing fees. This preliminary finding did not prevent the City from later challenging the claims or raising defenses.
Judge Cousins denied Kim’s request for equitable tolling without prejudice because the City had not yet had an opportunity to respond. The court stated that Kim could raise equitable tolling again later, and directed the clerk and U.S. Marshal to serve the City without requiring advance payment of fees.
The detailed version
- Kim v. City of Campbell · No. 5:26-cv-10470
- Nathanael Cousins
- Sept. 22, 2026
Background
Albert B. Kim, who represented himself, filed a civil complaint against the City of Campbell. He alleged that the City repeatedly failed to secure an American Sign Language interpreter for him during a series of interactions in 2019. The complaint asserted a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and requested equitable tolling. Kim also applied to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Filing-Fee Application
The court granted Kim’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee because it was persuaded that he could not afford the fees.
Initial Screening
Because Kim was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). This screening requires the court to identify claims that can proceed and dismiss claims that are frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or seek money from a defendant protected from that type of relief. The court found at least one legally recognizable claim on the face of Kim’s complaint and found that the complaint satisfied the screening requirements.
The court emphasized that this was a preliminary determination. It did not prevent the City from challenging the claims, raising defenses, or filing a motion to dismiss.
Equitable Tolling
The court denied Kim’s request for equitable tolling without prejudice. It explained that the City had not yet had an opportunity to contest the request and that Kim had not explained why the court should decide it on an expedited basis before allowing the City to respond. Because the denial was without prejudice, Kim remained free to raise equitable tolling later.
Disposition
The court granted Kim’s application to proceed without paying filing fees, found that his complaint satisfied the statutory screening requirements, and denied his request for equitable tolling without prejudice. The clerk was directed to issue the summons, and the U.S. Marshal was directed to serve the City with the complaint, attachments, and order without requiring advance payment of fees.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.