Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wyrzykowski v. County of Marin

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division

March 23, 2015

COUNTY OF MARIN, et al., Defendants.


LAUREL BEELER, Magistrate Judge.


Plaintiff Tadeusz Wyrzykowski, who is proceeding pro se, sued four Defendants: (1) the County of Marin; (2) the County of Marin Board of Supervisors; (3) Roy Given; and (4) Liz Clark. (First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 8.[1]) The gist of his allegations is that Defendants improperly seek taxes from him with respect to a property he owns. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. (Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff ostensibly opposes that motion, but he also moves for leave to file a second amended complaint. (Motion to Amend, ECF No. 33; Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 37.) Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the court finds this matter suitable for determination without oral argument and vacates the March 26, 2015 hearing. Upon consideration of the papers submitted and the applicable legal authority, the court grants Defendants' motion and allows Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.



Plaintiff's allegations are difficult to understand, but it appears that he alleges that he is the owner of two properties-"Property #01" and "Property #28"- and that Defendants improperly assessed penalties and interest for his failure to pay taxes on those Properties. ( See First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 7-14.) This action, however, is about Property #01. ( Id. ¶ 7.) He alleges that Defendants have improperly labeled the properties as "delinquent" since 2002, deprived him of due process of law and equal protection under the law, violated his civil rights, engaged in racketeering and fraud, and intentionally inflicted emotional distress. ( See id. ¶¶ 33-80.)

Plaintiff alleges that the unlawful conduct began on April 1, 2002, "upon my asking the tax office to[] please check some facts/figures re[:] town folks' properties." ( Id. ¶ 10.) Plaintiff believed that "the taxman was auctioning on false delinquency, ' rendering people homeless...." ( Id. (ellipses in original).) Defendants then "discriminated, insulted... me, labeled for retaliation... for daring to, asking in the name of the greater public good...." ( Id. (ellipses in original).) Four days later, on April 4, 2002, Defendants "embezzled my tax payments and labeled my [P]roperty #28 delinquent, ' set it up for auction... & continue oppressing, defrauding [until] present, 2014/15, " setting me up for another decade of oppression and fraud, now on delinquent [P]rop[erty] #01." ( Id. (ellipses in original).)

Over five years later, on June 22, 2007, Defendants "induced me [i]nto a fraudulent contract' IP, to pay again on a paid bill. ( Id. ¶ 11.) He "asked the [B]oard of Supervisors fo[r] help, [but] they sheltered, accomplised [sic] the abusers...." ( Id. (ellipses in original).)

Over three years after that, on December 20, 2010, non-party Michael Smith and Defendant Given "assaulted me for filing an Adm. Claim...." ( Id. (ellipses in original).) Three days later, on December 23, 2010, "I sought help from the Supes. Instead [of getting] help, I got battered, at the Board chamber...." ( Id. (ellipses in original).)

On January 4, 2011, Defendant Given "ordered me to report to him... despite the fact that [other individuals] were the legal Directors of the tax offices...." ( Id. (ellipses in original).) "At that time the undue/untrue payments on the fraudulent contract were ending, freeing me from the oppression, retaliation, fraud, abuses, usurpations...." ( Id. (ellipses in original).)

On April 12, 2010, he "timely paid tax $2984[.]51 on [P]rop[erty] #01 (and on other props.)." ( Id. ) On December 10, 2010, he "timely paid tax $1650[.]14 on [P]rop[erty] #01 (and on other props.)." ( Id. ) And on April 8, 2011, he "timely paid tax $2451[.]35 on [P]rop[erty] #01 (and on other props.)." ( Id. ) Despite these payments, Defendants Given and Clark and others "maliciously make sure my misery does not end, but the retaliation, injuries, damages [] extended for another decade." ( Id. ¶ 12.) "[D]espite taxes timely PAID, [Defendants] fraudulently label [P]rop[erty] #1 delinquent, ' & as before, with [P]rop[erty] #28, they point it to - auction." ( Id. )

From 2011 to 2013, Defendants "repeatedly demand payments, penalties, interests, fees, on [P]rop[erty] #1. ( Id. ¶ 13.) And from 2012 to 2014, "through extraordinary diligence, many calls, visits, letters, public appeals to/with[] Defendants, County Administrator, the Board/Supes, Grand Jury, et al., I was not even duly heard. Complete stone-walled systemic corruption. Contempt of Truth. Instead, I was exposes to endless disregard, hostilities, deceit, concealment, violence..." ( Id. (ellipses in original)).

On or about August 14, 2013, "under more threats of further punishment, I sent by Mail, to [Defendant] Given undue/untrue demanded, fraudulent payment on a bill, [P]rop[erty] #01 that's already been paid." ( Id. )

Finally, on February 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed a government administrative claim, but "[t]he County/Counsel emblematically stone-walled, fraudulently with negligence showed no interest in [it], nor its content, charges, format, in/sufficiency, et al." ( Id. ¶ 14.) On the claim form, when asked to provide the "date of injury, damage or loss, " Plaintiff wrote that was September 3, 2013 and is continuing. (Request for Judicial Notice ("RJN"), Ex. B, ECF No. 20.[2]) When asked to provide a "general description of injury, damage or loss and circumstance which gave rise to the claim, " Plaintiff wrote: "ethnic discrim., retaliatory discrim., equal protection, oppression, deprivation of rights - color of law, abuse of power, embezzlement, extortion of public property - tax funds, mail/wire fraud, RICO, systemic public corruption, malfeasance, negligent supervision, culture - customs, forger of documents, consortium, IIED, threats to life et al." ( Id. ) When asked why the County of Marin is responsible for the alleged injury, damage or loss, Plaintiff wrote: "The Board-County is allowing, permitting, sheltering, abetting, accomplicing fraud, extortion, corruption, et al. Roy Given is County Tax Collector, Treasurer, Finance Dir., Public Administrator." ( Id. ) And when asked the name or names of the County ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.