Ybarra v. Wells County Jail et al

Filing 37

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court DENIES Randy Russell Ybarras motion for leave to amend his complaint ECF 32 and DIRECTS the clerk to edit ECF 33 to indicate that it is a Proposed Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Robert L Miller, Jr on 1/16/18. (Copy mailed to pro se party). (nal)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
RANDY RUSSELL YBARRA,
Plaintiff,
v.
WELLS COUNTY JAIL, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO. 3:17-CV-211-RLM-MGG

OPINION AND ORDER
Randy Russell Ybarra, a prisoner without a lawyer, filed a letter asking to
amend his complaint with a proposed amended complaint. At this stage of the
proceedings, “a party may amend the party’s pleading only by leave of court or
by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when
justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The court thus construes Mr.
Ybarra’s letter as a motion for leave to amend. “Reasons for finding that leave
should not be granted include “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the
part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance
of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.” Airborne Beepers & Video, Inc.
v. AT & T Mobility LLC, 499 F.3d 663, 666 (7th Cir. 2007).
In the proposed amended complaint, Mr. Ybarra seeks to add Joe Pettibone
and Zack Hayden as defendants. Mr. Ybarra’s claims are subject to a two-year
statute of limitations. Behavioral Inst. of Ind., LLC v. Hobart City of Common
Council, 406 F.3d 926, 929 (7th Cir. 2005). The amended complaint focuses on

Mr. Ybarra’s time in segregation from September 25, 2015, to October 2, 2015.
Mr. Ybarra signed the amended complaint more than two years later on
December 4, 2017. Therefore, amending the complaint to add Mr. Pettibone and
Mr. Hayden would be futile unless the allegations against them would relate back
to the original complaint.
Rule 15(c)(1)(C) “permit[s] an amendment to relate back to the original
complaint only where there has been an error made concerning the identity of
the proper party and where that party is chargeable with knowledge of the
mistake.” King v. One Unknown Federal Correctional Officer, 201 F.3d 910, 914
(7th Cir. 2000). No such mistake occurred here. Mr. Ybarra might not have
known the identity of Mr. Pettibone or Mr. Hayden before, but that wouldn’t be
a mistake for purposes of the relation back rules. See id. Because Mr. Ybarra
didn’t assert his claims against Mr. Pettibone or Mr. Hayden in a timely manner
and because the relation-back doctrine doesn’t apply to these claims, amending
the complaint to add Mr. Pettibone and Mr. Hayden would be futile.
For these reasons, the court:
(1) DENIES Randy Russell Ybarra’s motion for leave to amend his
complaint (ECF 32); and
(2) DIRECTS the clerk to edit ECF 33 to indicate that it is a Proposed
Amended Complaint.
SO ORDERED.
Date: January 16, 2018

/s/ Robert L. Miller, Jr.
Judge
United States District Court

2