Opinion
Case No. 02-4030-RDR
July 1, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The complaint in this case alleges federal law claims under the Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 arising from an incident which occurred on October 14, 1999. This case was filed on February 14, 2002, more than two years after the incident giving rise to this lawsuit.
This case originally named Scott Hagemeister and Riley County, Kansas as defendants. Riley County has since been dismissed as a defendant.
Defendant Hagemeister has filed a motion to dismiss asserting a statute of limitations defense and other defenses. Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to file a response to the motion to dismiss. Defendant has also filed a motion for leave to file an amended motion to dismiss. The court shall grant all of these motions.
Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss does not dispute that a two-year limitations period applies to the federal claims in this case. Plaintiff asserts that the running of the limitations period was tolled, however, by his service of a notice of claim pursuant to K.S.A. 12-105b.
A notice of claim under K.S.A. 12-105b is not necessary to bring a federal claim under Section 1983. Reidenback v. U.S.D. No. 437, 878 F. Supp. 178, 181 (D.Kan. 1995). Therefore, the filing of such a notice does not toll the running of the limitations period. See Day v. Moscow, 955 F.2d 807, 814 (2nd Cir.) cert. denied, 506 U.S. 821 (1992); Snodderly v. State of Kansas, 92 F. Supp.2d 1159, 1161-62 (D.Kan. 2000) (pendency of administrative investigation does not toll statute of limitations on § 1983 claim).
Because the only federal claims in this case are barred by the statute of limitations, the court shall dismiss those federal claims and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims. Upon these conditions, defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.