Rashoun Smith v. City of Akron
476 F. App'x 67 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c), an amendment to substitute a named defendant for a 'John Doe' placeholder after the statute of limitations has expired does not relate back to the original complaint's filing date, because a plaintiff's lack of knowledge of a defendant's identity is not a 'mistake concerning the proper party's identity.'
Facts:
- On August 27, 2007, officers John Ross and Michael Miles began following Rashoun Smith, who was driving a vehicle the officers identified as stolen.
- Smith stopped his car, exited, and began speaking with the officers.
- He told the officers that the car belonged to a friend, but he refused to provide the friend's name.
- The officers proceeded to arrest Smith.
- During the arrest, Ross and Miles wrestled Smith to the ground, punched and kneed him, used chemical spray on him, and tased him before placing him in the police cruiser.
Procedural Posture:
- Rashoun Smith filed a complaint in an Ohio state court against the City of Akron, its police department, and 'John and Jane Doe Nos. 1-10.'
- The City of Akron removed the case to the U.S. District Court.
- Smith amended his complaint, adding officers John Ross and Michael Miles as defendants in place of 'John Doe' numbers one and two.
- Ross and Miles filed a motion to dismiss the claims against them, arguing the amendment was made after the two-year statute of limitations had expired.
- The district court granted the officers' motion to dismiss, ruling the amendment did not 'relate back.'
- The district court also granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Akron and its police department on all remaining claims.
- Smith (appellant) appealed the district court's rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does amending a complaint to substitute named police officers for 'John Doe' defendants after the statute of limitations has expired relate back to the original filing date under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) when the plaintiff's failure to name them was due to a lack of knowledge of their identities?
Opinions:
Majority - Sutton, Circuit Judge
No. An amendment substituting a named defendant for a 'John Doe' placeholder does not relate back to the original complaint because a lack of knowledge regarding a defendant's identity does not constitute a 'mistake' under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). The court reasoned that Rule 15(c) is designed to correct a mistake in identity, such as suing the wrong party when the correct party was known, not to remedy a plaintiff's failure to discover the identity of unknown defendants within the limitations period. The court distinguished this case from Krupski v. Costa Crociere, where the plaintiff knew of the proper party but misunderstood their role, which qualified as a mistake. Here, Smith simply did not know who the officers were. The court concluded that waiting until the last day of the two-year limitations period to file the complaint left no time to discover the officers' identities, and Rule 15(c) offers no relief for this problem. The court also affirmed the dismissal of claims against the city, finding no evidence of a municipal 'policy or custom' for the § 1983 claim and that state law provides immunity for governmental functions like policing.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a strict interpretation of the 'mistake' requirement in FRCP 15(c) for relation back of amendments. It clarifies that there is a critical distinction between misidentifying a known party (which may be a correctable mistake) and being ignorant of a party's identity (which is not). The ruling serves as a strong cautionary tale for plaintiffs, emphasizing the necessity of conducting diligent pre-filing investigation to identify all potential defendants before the statute of limitations expires. By aligning with all other federal circuits on this issue, the court reinforces a uniform national standard that prevents plaintiffs from using 'John Doe' complaints to indefinitely toll the statute of limitations while they identify parties.
