Powell v. Pauley et al

Filing 41

ORDER entered by Judge Sara Darrow on March 28, 2016. Defendants' 18 Motion to Dismiss all claims as to "unknown officers" is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's 19 Motion to Strike Answer is MOOT. All claims as to "unknown officers" are dismissed. (SC, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 28 March, 2016 02:02:09 PM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ROCK ISLAND DIVISION
AIRLYN POWELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROCK ISLAND POLICE OFFICERS
NICHOLAS PAULEY, JONATHAN
CARY, and RYAN DERUDDER; THE
CITY OF ROCK ISLAND; UNKNOWN
OFFICERS,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:15-cv-04013-SLD-JEH

ORDER
Before the Court are Defendants Unknown Officers’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint as
to themselves, ECF No. 18, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer to Complaint, ECF No. 19.
For the following reasons, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED and the motion to strike is
MOOT.
As an initial matter, Defendant City of Rock Island voluntarily withdrew its affirmative
defense of qualified immunity, which was the subject of the motion to strike. See Mot. Withdraw
Reference, ECF No. 21. Accordingly, that motion is moot.
Defendants Unknown Officers’ motion to dismiss argues (without citing a single case)1
that Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must be dismissed as to unknown officers,
because the statute of limitations on Plaintiff’s complaint ran the day she filed it, and claims

1

“Every motion raising a question of law . . . must include a memorandum of law including a brief statement of the
specific points or propositions of law and supporting authorities upon which the moving party relies, and identifying
the Rule under which the motion is filed.” L. R. 7.1(B)(1).

1

against unknown parties cannot be amended, or even sustained, after the statute of limitations has
run. Mot. Dismiss 1–2.
Plaintiff did not respond to the motion to dismiss. If a response is not filed to a motion
within 14 days, the presiding judge presumes that the motion is unopposed. L. R. 7.1(B)(2).
Nonetheless, the Court will briefly address the merits of Defendants’ motion.
In reviewing a motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts in the
complaint, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Scanlan v. Eisenberg, 669
F.3d 838, 841 (7th Cir. 2012). A court will dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Plaintiff brings her claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compl. ¶¶ 39–58, ECF No. 1.
The statute of limitations for § 1983 claims is determined by the statute of limitations for
personal injury actions in the state where the incident forming the basis of the claim occurred.
See Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 275 (1985). In Illinois, this period is two years. See
Kalimara v. Illinois Dep’t of Corr., 879 F.2d 276, 276 (7th Cir. 1989). A claim against unknown
defendants upon which the statute of limitations has run is subject to dismissal if the original
claim could not be amended pursuant to Rule 15(c) to name the proper defendant. King v. One
Unknown Fed. Corr. Officer, 201 F.3d 910, 913–15 (7th Cir. 2000). Rule 15(c)(3) permits
relation back of an amendment to the original complaint only when “there has been an error
made concerning the identity of the proper party and where that party is chargeable with
knowledge of the mistake.” Baskin v. City of Des Plaines, 138 F.3d 701, 704 (7th Cir. 1998).
This means that plaintiffs have “the burden of determining who is liable for [her] injuries and of
doing so before the statute of limitations runs out.” Allen v. City of Chicago, No. 08-CV-6127,
2009 WL 4506317, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2009).

2

Plaintiff alleges that the incidents forming the basis of her complaint occurred on
February 15, 2013. Compl. ¶ 15. She filed her complaint exactly two years later, on February
15, 2015, naming, along with three police officers, the City of Rock Island and “Unknown
Officers.” However, the statute of limitations ran the day she filed her claim. Were Plaintiff
now to try to amend her complaint to properly name the officers it fails to name under the rubric
of “unknown officers,” she would not be permitted to do so. King, 201 F.3d at 915. Her claim
against the unknown officers must be dismissed. Id.
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss all claims as to “unknown officers,” ECF
No. 18, is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer, ECF No. 19, is MOOT.

Entered this 28th day of March, 2016.
s/ Sara Darrow
SARA DARROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3