Richard Worthington, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Dave Wilson and Jeff Wall, and Village of Peoria Heights, Defendant/cross-Appellant
8 F.3d 1253 · 1993
Facts
On February 25, 1989, Richard Worthington was arrested by a police officer in the Peoria Heights Police Department. Worthington, who had an injured left hand, advised the officer of his injury, but the officer allegedly grabbed and twisted his hand. A second officer arrived, and Worthington was wrestled to the ground, handcuffed, and then hoisted by the handcuffs, causing broken bones in his left hand. Exactly two years later, Worthington filed a complaint in state court against the Village of Peoria Heights and "three unknown named police officers." The complaint alleged deprivation of constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Issue
Did Worthington's amended complaint, which substituted named police officers for "unknown named police officers," relate back to the original filing under Fed. R.Civ.P. 15(c) to avoid the statute of limitations?
Holding
No, the amended complaint did not relate back because Worthington's failure to name the officers was due to a lack of knowledge of their identity, not a mistake concerning their identity, thus failing the "mistake" requirement of Rule 15(c).
Rule
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) allows an amendment changing a party to relate back if, among other things, the party to be brought in "knew or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against the party." The court interprets "mistake" to mean an error in identification, not merely a lack of knowledge of the proper party's identity. Therefore, if a plaintiff simply does not know the defendant's name, it is not considered a "mistake" under Rule 15(c). This interpretation applies under both the old and new versions of Rule 15(c).
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.